Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COUNTY OF LANCASHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Monday 30 July.

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be further considered upon Thursday 25 October.

BOURNEMOUTH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 25 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Local Government Elections (Personation)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he proposes to take to prevent personation at the forthcoming local government elections; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): The Government share the widespread public concern in Northern Ireland at the extent and nature of electoral abuse in recent elections there, and are considering what further measures, including those requiring a Bill, should be introduced before the local government elections in May 1985.

Mr. Maclennan: Those concerns were widespread before the European elections, and the Government did not move then. Will the Minister give an assurance that, if necessary, legislative action will be taken in time and that consultations with the constitutional parties will be extensive?

Mr. Scott: In fact, certain administrative action was taken before the European elections; but before considering legislative action it is right that careful consideration should be given to all the options. I hope that it will be possible to take that action in time to meet the date for the local government elections next year.

Mr. Porter: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the fears expressed before the European elections were justified by what happened in the Province during those elections? Has

the time come when a form of identification for voters should be made compulsory. not only in the Province, but in the United Kingdom as a whole?

Mr. Scott: Continued widespread abuse means that we must consider all the options to counter it. Otherwise, we are defrauding the voters of Northern Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister acknowledge that it would be unacceptable if a form of identification at polling, such as stamping with invisible ink, were used in Northern Ireland and not elsewhere?

Mr. Scott: I cannot accept that. The situation in Northern Ireland is quite different from that which exists on this side of the water. In those circumstances, special measures may be necessary.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: No doubt there is a growing threat of impersonation in Northern Ireland, but to a large extent it also occurs in Leicester.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is ingenious, but the question must relate to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Bruinvels: Will my hon. Friend consult his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the difficulties experienced in other parts of the United Kingdom to ensure that there are no electoral disadvantages?

Mr. Scott: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have his attention drawn to what my hon. Friend has said.

Health and Social Service Boards

Mr. A. Cecil Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied that the management and accounting methods now used by the health and social service boards are effective in minimising misuse of public funds.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): Yes, Sir; but there is room for improvement. Progress is being made in the greater use of information technology and more efficient systems are being developed to cover budgetary control, payroll, nurse management, patient administration and stores control.
On health service management, I have initiated a wide-ranging action programme based on a recently completed review of the structure and management of the services. I am also considering what action is necessary to secure in Northern Ireland the improvements in the management of the health and personal social services advocated in the Griffiths report.

Mr. Walker: I am happy to hear that reply. Is the Minister aware that there is serious anxiety among employees and employers in the Royal Victoria hospital? They suspect that some employees are manipulating the system to deprive taxpayers of money. Will the Minister please investigate such charges with the managing body of the hospital?

Mr. Patten: Certainly such charges need to be investigated. I am aware of a recent case which was drawn to the attention of the chairman of the board by an hon. Member. I believe that appropriate action has been taken as a result. I hope that any other cases will be referred to me or to the chairman of the appropriate board.

Mr. Archer: While ensuring that public funds are protected from the unmeritorious, is the Minister taking steps to ensure that people receive their proper entitlements? Does he agree that the Belfast law centre not only provides much needed advice and information, but helps people to perceive the law as something that can help them and that it is worthy of respect? If so, will he at least maintain the centre's level of real funding?

Mr. Patten: The grant to the Belfast law centre is not strictly a matter for me. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have been as pleased as I was that the Social Security Advisory Committee, when it came to Northern Ireland, particularly commended my Department's efforts to encourage take-up. We are discussing with the Belfast law centre and others ways of helping people to become aware of their rights under welfare legislation.

Dr. Glyn: In his review, will my hon. Friend take into account the attempts being made in England to cut the costs of administration and to give a better service to the patient by providing more doctors and nurses?

Mr. Patten: Yes, Sir. We have consulted on the Griffiths report and hope to bring forward proposals in the autumn for implementation, where appropriate, in Northern Ireland, given the difference in its structure.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the import of the Minister's answers. Does the concern extend to boards other than the Eastern Health and Social Services Board? The hon. Gentleman says that information technology is being used. As what is put in is what comes out, does he consider that there are sufficient safeguards to prevent misuse of the information?

Mr. Patten: My concern covers each board. I hope that there are sufficient safeguards. However, if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to suggest that there are not, I should like to hear from him.

Royal Ulster Constabulary

Sir John Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to improve the living and training conditions of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Mr. Scott: Royal Ulster Constabulary accommodation and training are primarily matters for the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, but I understand that it is planned to spend £46·6 million over the next four years to extend and improve residential and operational accommodation. The Police Authority has recently sought my right hon. Friend's approval for the construction of a new expanded training centre to replace the present limited facilities at Enniskillen. My right hon. Friend and I are currently studying the Police Authority's proposals.

Sir John Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the RUC does a very tough job? Is he further aware that today's terrorists get the benefit of international training and expertise? Bearing that in mind, will he make sure that the RUC can match the international expertise that terrorists are bringing to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Scott: I share my hon. Friend's respect for the courage and determination of the RUC. The Government are determined to ensure that it has the training and resources to do its job.

Mr. Maginnis: Is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary aware of the disquiet caused to my constituents by persistent rumours that the new training depot will be removed from Fermanagh and South Tyrone? Will he assure them that he will look carefully at possible sites in my constituency for the new training depot and that neither he nor the Police Authority has yet ruled out siting the training depot in my constituency? Will he also assure them that, with the Police Authority, he will have proper consultations with elected representatives in the west of the Province?

Mr. Scott: As I have said, my right hon. Friend and I are studying the proposals. No decisions have yet been taken. We want to consider all the options to make sure that the RUC gets the training that is so necessary in the most cost-effective way possible.

Mr. Soley: I hope that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's opening remarks do not mean that he does not take a close and detailed interest in the RUC's training programme. Will he confirm that the human awareness and discrimination training is at least up to the standard of that of the Metropolitan police?

Mr. Scott: I am sure that all aspects of the training appropriate to the special task of the RUC in Northern Ireland are covered to the highest possible standard. However, we need improved facilities to conduct that training.

Constitutional Status

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in order to assess the current wishes of those who live in Northern Ireland about their consitutional status, he will consider holding a further referendum.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while every Member of the House understands, though may not like, the constitutional position, many people overseas —particularly in the United States—and, indeed, many young voters in this country, do not understand that a majority view has frequently been expressed through the ballot box? Would it not help to promote Her Majesty's Government's policies and to counter hostile propaganda if, say, once a decade that exercise were carried out?

Mr. Prior: I take my hon. Friend's point. On the other hand, I am well aware of the impact that too many elections can have in Northern Ireland. Nearly every election in Northern Ireland in recent years has been fought as if it were a referendum about the constitution. Therefore, I do not want to get involved in a further argument at this stage. We take every opportunity to explain the position, in the United States and in other countries.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that we know what the outcome of any referendum would be? Let us be quite clear — [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]. Because the minority community was deliberately made a minority community by drawing a line round an area in which there was an inbuilt Protestant majority. That was done by force of arms a long time ago. Is it perhaps that the hon. Gentleman who asked the question is trying to be provocative and cause further trouble?

Mr. Prior: No. My hon. Friend would have a tremendous job to be as provocative as the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the constitutional position of Northern Ireland is not in question, that such a referendum would simply inflame passions that are best left uninflamed, and that the people should be allowed to devote their attention to finding ways and means of working and living together?

Mr. Prior: I have absolutely no doubt that that is correct. I also appreciate the point raised by my hon. Friend about the need to try to show other countries what the position is.

Mr. Canavan: Instead of holding a rigged referendum confined to the gerrymandered Six Counties of Ireland, why do we not consult the Government of the Republic of Ireland about the possibility of holding a referendum throughout the whole of Ireland, so that all the people of Ireland can be consulted about, for example, a united Ireland?

Mr. Prior: The simple answer to that question is that the Republic of Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom.

Security

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Prior: Since I last answered questions on 28 June there have been four deaths in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. Two of those killed were civilians and two were part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
The skill and professionalism of the security forces has led, so far this year, to 324 people being charged with serious offences, including 34 with murder and 38 with attempted murder. In the same period, 126 weapons, 21,349 rounds of ammunition and 10,946lb. of explosives have been recovered.

Mr. Proctor: As one who has not always seen eye to eye in every detail with my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether he is aware of the wide support for the personal courage and determination which has typified and characterised his stewardship of Northern Ireland?
Will my right hon. Friend examine security and deployment in Castlederg in the west part of Tyrone, and raise that to the same level as currently exists in south Fermanagh?

Mr. Prior: On the latter point, we have obviously been very worried by recent events in the Castlederg area. I have had private talks with the Member of Parliament for the area, and drawn the matter very much to the attention of the Chief Constable and the GOC.
As for my hon. Friend's earlier remarks, I am quite embarrassed by the nice things that people say once they know that I am going.

Mr. Robinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that July and August have traditionally been sensitive months for security in the Province, and no time more so than the

month of August at about the anniversary of internment? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in August 1983 a number of terrorist activities were staged to impress visitors from the Noraid organisation? Is he aware that that same delegation intends to return this August? If so, will he take steps to ensure that those of its members who engaged in terrorist activities on the last occasion and the publicity director of the IRA in America, Mr. Martin Galvin, are excluded from Northern Ireland?

Mr. Prior: I am well aware of what happened last August. I should like to make it plain that this group is not welcome in Northern Ireland. I have already been in touch with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary about certain individuals.

Mr. William Ross: Has the Secretary of State noticed that in recent weeks in a number of areas there have been provocations by Republican groups trying to create a reaction, which in some cases unfortunately occurred? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the normal antiterrorist activity is insufficient to deal with such incidents and that the police need to put their minds to methods of combating low-level street activity?

Mr. Prior: I am aware of certain incidents which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I am also aware of other provocative incidents which were committed by people from the other side of the community. I deplore all such incidents, from wherever they come.

Mr. Beggs: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the largest demonstrations held for 12 months in Northern Ireland went off peacefully, and for that reason no comment was made by the BBC to inform people throughout the United Kingdom?

Mr. Prior: Yes, I think it can be said that this summer there have been a number of marches of the traditional type which have gone off absolutely peacefully. That is a great credit to everyone in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, I believe that the Province is now.more stable. I think most people feel that there is a great deal more stability now than there has been for some years. I hope that that can be used as a basis for making some advances.

Mr. Onslow: Going back to what my right hon. Friend said earlier, I hope that he will not be too embarrassed if I say that a number of hon. Members in the House are prepared to say nice things about him, whether he is going or not.

Mr. Prior: That is a change.

Mr. Archer: Does the Secretary of State agree that security is best protected by attracting the support of the whole community for the agencies of law and order and that that entails maintaining manifest fairness? Will he tell the House when we may expect a debate on the Baker report?

Mr. Prior: I expect that this item will come up for debate soon after we return. This is a matter for the Leader of the House, but I believe that that is the understanding.

Irish Congress of Trade Unions

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his most recent meeting with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): My right hon. Friend last formally met the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in November 1983, when they discussed a wide range of economic matters.

Mr. Parry: In view of the increase in unemployment in the Province under this Government from 52,000 in 1979 to 118,000 today, when do the Government intend to put to the ICTU some positive measures to reduce this high level of unemployment?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that it is the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to which the Government should put such measures. Whilst I acknowledge the considerable and worrying increase in unemployment in the Province in the last few years, we should take comfort from the fact that the last unemployment figures showed a reduction. Seasonally adjusted, they actually showed a fall.

Mr. Beggs: In an attempt to deal with unemployment in Northern Ireland, will the Minister give urgent consideration to the difficulties facing cheese manufacturers and the possible loss of jobs arising from the cut in the milk allocation to those factories? Will he also tell the House whether he has any plans to assist the beef industry, in view of the dramatic fall in beef prices?

Mr. Butler: I suspect that the question has more relevance to a later question on the Order Paper. However, it is true that there is considerable concern, and indeed short-time working, in industries associated with the agriculture industry, because of the cutback in milk production. We are watching the situation very closely. I believe that there has been a degree of over-reaction. I hope that it will not result in loss of jobs.

Sir John Farr: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the representatives of the Irish TUC, whom he is to meet, are fully representative of widely-based opinion in the Province?

Mr. Butler: Yes.

Mr. Soley: Will the Minister go back to the trade unions and discuss with them the future of shipbuilding in the Province? In a statement yesterday, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry brought into question the future of Harland and Wolff. What comments has the Minister to make to his right hon. Friend in the light of that worrying statement?

Mr. Butler: Members of the committee will be meeting my right hon. Friend on Tuesday. I am sure that, if they so wish, they will raise the subject with him then.
The Government have supported Harland and Wolff considerably over the years. We shall continue to do so, within proper limits. The problem is getting the orders.

Housing Executive Property

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the provision of sound title for Housing Executive properties available for sale to tenants.

Mr. Chris Patten: The Northern Ireland Housing Executive is responsible for the day-to-day administration of its voluntary sales scheme. However, I understand from the vice-chairman that sound title has been established for

over 3,000 holdings. There are at present some 169 holdings where there are title problems, and the Housing Executive is endeavouring to resolve these on the basis of negotiated agreement with neighbouring landowners. The majority of the 21,000 sales completed to date have progressed smoothly.

Mr. Molyneaux: As the ownership of at least some of those properties has passed through the hands of no fewer than four successive authorities, will the Minister consider introducing legislation to clear up the confusion in those remaining cases once and for all, bearing in mind that the number is likely to increase as fresh applications for purchase are received?

Mr. Patten: There are certainly problems—and I noted what was said by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) on the financial provisions order—but I do not consider that the difficulty is quite so acute as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. We are still managing to complete 100 sales a week. I think that that is very encouraging and a vindication of the policy so wisely started by the Labour Government and vigorously continued by the present Government. However, I shall keep the matter under review.

Children (Education)

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children in Northern Ireland are presently receiving their education in (a) Catholic and (b) Protestant schools in the state system.

Mr. Scott: In January 1983 there were 162,749 pupils in grant-aided schools under Roman Catholic management, and 190,091 pupils at controlled schools—which are non-denominational — and at voluntary grammar schools not under Roman Catholic management. These figures cannot automatically be equated with the denomination of the pupils concerned.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister accept that when the Select Committee last went across to examine the state of education in Northern Ireland the two figures were much nearer to each other than those that he has given? The imagination boggles at what the Unionists will have to do to keep ahead.
It is a disgrace to all of us that those children have been brought up during the troubles. I hope that in the future there will no longer be two separate communities and that the hand of friendship will be stretched out from the unionist to the Catholic community. Not communalism, but democracy, as we have it here, will solve that particular problem.

Mr. Scott: As in the rest of the United Kingdom, children in Northern Ireland are educated as far as possible in accordance with the wishes of their parents. Having said that, however, I shall lose no opportunity of encouraging teachers, parents and school authorities from both sections of the education system in Northern Ireland to co-operate, wherever possible, on both study and community projects. That would be of benefit to everyone concerned.

Mr. Alexander: Does my hon. Friend agree that more children should be encouraged to attend schools of mixed faith, so that the early barriers of hatred and mistrust can be cut down as soon as possible?

Mr. Scott: As I said, the Government would support integrated education, and they have demonstrated that by
their support for Lagan college. My hon. Friend should not underestimate the degree of integration that takes place in other schools in Northern Ireland due to conscious wishes of parents and to the determination of some teachers to take a lead in the matter. But the wishes of the parents must be our predominant concern.

Mr. Archer: In view of the Minister's encouraging answer that children should be educated in accordance with their parents' wishes, is he aware that the number of children whose parents would like them to be educated in inter-community schools such as Lagan college now substantially exceeds that college's capacity? Will he consider capital funding for an extension of Lagan college on a different site?

Mr. Scott: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, Lagan college is in temporary accommodation and is seeking a more permanent home. We would obviously consider how capital requirements could be met. However, there is a long queue of very deserving capital projects in education in Northern Ireland and I do not think that it would be right to give Lagan college special priority.

Constitution

Mr. Andrew MacKay: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on the progress of the negotiations between himself and the political parties after the New Ireland Forum report.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what constitutional changes he intends to make in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Prior: During the past three weeks I have had informal discussion with the leaders of the main political parties. I hope for further informal discussion, directly between the parties and with me, during the coming weeks, to see whether common ground can be found on the best way of making political progress in Northern Ireland. The Government hope that it will be possible to develop agreed ideas which reflect the interest and concern of both parts of the community.

Mr. MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the alliance proposals for more power for the Chairman of the Assembly and for some sharing of the chairmanship across the community divide constitute a useful way forward?

Mr. Prior: Yes. I think that the alliance proposal has a good deal of merit. I have no doubt that it will put them forward in the Reports Committee of the Assembly, with which I shall be having a discussion early next week.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: While paying tribute, on this afternoon of encomia, to my right hon. Friend's desire and efforts to make Northern Ireland more democratic, may I ask him whether he intends to discuss with the Constitutional Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, or with anyone else, "the way forward" set out in the document so entitled?

Mr. Skinner: He is on his way out.

Mr. Prior: Of course, I am willing to discuss the proposals in that document at any time. They are an advance on anything that we have seen for some time. The leader of the Official Unionist party knows that.
I may be on my way out, but I shall do my damnedest to see that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is never on the way in.

Mr. McNamara: Why does the right hon. Gentleman always engage in wishful thinking? Why is he so happy to be going? Is it because he has made no real constitutional advance in Northern Ireland, so that we still have a gerrymandered state bearing no resemblance to any ideas of democracy as we understand it in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that the real progress that we need to make will be made not in the Assembly but in discussions with the Republican Government?

Mr. Prior: All Secretaries of State, on both sides of the House, have done their best to make political progress in Northern Ireland, and that must involve both parts of the community. That is our aim, and that is what I have sought to achieve.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend think that it would be a fitting memorial for his work in Northern Ireland if he built a causeway linking Northern Ireland to the mainland of Britain, thus providing an irrevocable link?

Mr. Prior: We are just completing the Foyle bridge, which has cost a lot of money and I do not think that we have enough for a causeway quite yet.

Mr. Stephen Ross: May I suggest that if the Secretary of State has such powers, he may wish to build us a bridge to the Isle of Wight? May I also suggest that the greatest gift that he could make to this country and to its future peace would be to achieve a power-sharing executive out of the Assembly? Can he say whether, following the discussions that he has had so far with the other parties in Northern Ireland, he is at all optimistic that that is achievable?

Mr. Prior: I think that progress towards any devolved administration involving both parts of the community will be slow. I also think that any form of power sharing must not come under such great pressure that it breaks down again as it did before. We must therefore look for other modes than simply the power sharing of 1973–74. I am trying to turn the attention of the parties in Northern Ireland towards that, to see whether there is an alternative that meets the criteria.

Sir Anthony Grant: Has my right hon. Friend noticed any change in the Irish Government's view on this subject since their ambassador told some of us at the time of the last debate that the Irish Government were reasonably satisfied with the progress being made?

Mr. Prior: No. I think that the view of the Irish Government remains that which the ambassador told my hon. Friend. I must say to the Irish Government, and to this House, that I do not think that we shall see miraculous progress in the short term. It would be better to make slow progress which can be sustained than miraculous progress which will go wrong again.

Mr. Archer: Has the Secretary of State now grasped the fact that the dialogue for which we had all hoped is being delayed to see whether his successor is wet, dry or damp? Much as we shall regret his passing, had it not better be soon?

Mr. Prior: I have no evidence to support that view.

Dairy Industry

Mr. Nicholson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how the Northern Ireland dairy industry has been affected so far by the introduction of milk quotas in April.

Mr. Butler: It is still too early to assess the effects of the introduction of the milk supplementary levy, but the indications are that the majority of dairy farmers are adjusting to the new situation.
Milk production in the quarter. April-June 1984 is estimated to have been down on the equivalent period of 1983, but it is likely that many producers will have to make further adjustments to remain within their quota allocations.

Mr. Nicholson: If the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food continues to deny Northern Ireland the full benefits of the special Northern Ireland allocation, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Government fully implement their decision to equalise hardship throughout the United Kingdom, so that all hardship cases, especially those in Northern Ireland, receive equal and fair treatment?

Mr. Butler: I entirely refute the suggestion that Northern Ireland did not benefit from the 65,000 tonnes extra allocation. It definitely did. Regarding hardship, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have increased the proportion of farmers whom we hope to buy out, or the proportion of quota which we hope to buy out, under the outgoers scheme, which is giving special treatment to Northern Ireland yet again.

Housing Grant

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to accelerate the processing of housing grant applications.

Mr. Chris Patten: This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but I understand from the vice chairman that grants staff are currently working overtime in an effort to reduce the backlog in processing grants which resulted from the introduction of the Housing (NI) Order 1983.

Mr. Powell: Does the Minister recall that two years ago he intervened very effectively to help to remove the logjam which at that time accumulated in the processing of grants, and does he agree that a similarly effective intervention would be welcome at this stage?

Mr. Patten: There is a backlog, which I hope is a one-off backlog as a result of the 1980 order. We have increased the staff dealing with grants applications by 100 over the past 18 months. We have increased expenditure by £6 million this year, so that it has risen by 223 per cent. since the Government came to office. There will be a further increase of 26 in staff dealing with applications. I hope that we shall be able to shift the backlog once and for all.

Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister aware that not only can grants be given to householders by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but to disabled people by the Department of Health and Social Security? Is he further aware that there is occasionally a delay in the straightening

out of the needs between the two granting authorities. Will he take steps to see that those problems, too, are sorted out?

Mr. Patten: Yes, Sir.

New Ireland Forum Report

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to meet the Irish Government to discuss the New Ireland Forum report.

Mr. Prior: I often meet members of the Irish Government, in particular the Foreign Minister, Mr. Peter Barry, and on such occasions it is naturally open to them to refer to the New Ireland Forum report. I have no firm date at present for my next meeting.

Mr. Dubs: The right hon. Gentleman said a few moments ago that he wished to see slow progress, but progress, in resolving Northern Ireland's problems. Is he aware that many of us are watching with concern for evidence of that progress, particularly in relation to the various options put forward in the New Ireland Forum report, and that we should like to see clear evidence of progress on those lines in discussions with the Irish Government?

Mr. Prior: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that his party, too, is committed to progress, but progress with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That has to be taken into account all the time and that is why I believe that progress will be slow.

Mr. Molyneaux: In any such discussions, will the Secretary of State firmly reject any proposals for joint control of the security forces in Northern Ireland, which, if they were put into effect, would be constitutionally unacceptable and unworkable in practice?

Mr. Prior: I do not believe that joint control, in the form that we should expect it to operate, would be appropriate in the circumstances of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Porter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of us on these Benches think it inadvisable to consider the New Ireland Forum report, but that if he insists upon considering the report it must be essential to consider it only in relation to the Official Unionist document that was produced prior to it?

Mr. Prior: There are a number of documents which have to be considered at the same time.

Mr. Skinner: Can the Secretary of State tell us exactly what, during his tenure of office—taking into account the initiative in connection with the New Ireland Forum — he has managed to achieve? Many superstructures have been set up while I have been in the House in the past 14 years, but they do not seem to be getting anywhere. As reference has been made to his being on his way out, will he take a piece of advice from me? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is serious. If he wants to get hold of those directorships, he should go as quickly as possible, because his right hon. Friend the ex-chairman of the Tory party—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the New Ireland Forum.

Trainee Doctors

Rev. Martin Smyth: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to enable expenses to be paid to trainee doctors for Northern Ireland removing to other parts of the United Kingdom comparable to those payable in Great Britain under the Whitley agreements.

Mr. Chris Patten: These expenses are a matter for the Great Britain Health Departments and the general council of the Whitley councils for the health services in Great Britain.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister make representations to his colleagues in Great Britain to ensure that the same facilities apply to trainee doctors travelling here from Northern Ireland?

Mr. Patten: I know the concern felt by the hon. Gentleman and others on that issue. I shall certainly speak to my right hon. Friend. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also get in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, not least so that the Whitley council can be aware of the anxiety in Northern Ireland about the matter.

Prison Officers

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend the training period for prison officers in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Scott: The content and duration of the initial training course for new recruits to the Northern Ireland prison service is currently being reviewed, with the intention that a revised longer course should be introduced at the beginning of next year.

Mr. Fatchett: Does the Minister realise that there is widespread feeling among prison officers that their training needs to be extended? Will he undertake to discuss any new training modules with the Prison Officers Association, so that it can participate in those discussions?

Mr. Scott: As soon as the content, broad outline and length of the course have been established, we shall, of course, consult the Prison Officers Association.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister say what extra instructions are being given to prison warders regarding the searching of babies and prams belonging to female prisoners in Armagh prison?

Mr. Scott: It would appear, from the line that the hon. Gentleman is taking, that he has swallowed whole the Republican propaganda that is being spread about a certain incident. Searching of babies does not take place in prisons in Northern Ireland.

Criminal Inquiries (Compensation)

Mr. William Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now undertake a review of the law governing compensation for criminal injury in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Scott: A review is already in progress.

Mr. Ross: During that review, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that a young woman in my constituency died as a result of a bomb explosion? She was a single

parent and because she was unemployed her child was unable to obtain compensation. Does the Minister not think that that is scandalous and should be rectified?

Mr. Scott: The criminal injuries compensation scheme operates on the principles and practice of common law as normally applied. A review is in progress and any representations that the hon. Gentleman makes will be taken fully into account.

Mentally Handicapped Children

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will now bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom by transferring responsibility for providing services for educating mentally-handicapped children from the Health and Social Services Department to the Department of Education.

Mr. Chris Patten: A working group set up by the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland is currently considering this issue. When it has reported my hon. Friend and I will study its recommendations before taking a decision.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister agree that mentally handicapped children in Northern Ireland are at a disadvantage in this respect compared with their counterparts in the United Kingdom, and that this is something that should be dealt with immediately?

Mr. Patten: I am not sure that I agree that such children are necessarily at a disadvantage, but we hope that the working party will give us the opportunity to take a decision in the autumn. There are two views about this, as there are about many other issues.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Bruce: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 July.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Bruce: The Prime Minister said on Tuesday that we need a merchant shipbuilding fleet for strategic reasons. In view of the comments this morning by the auditors of British Shipbuilders that the sell-off of the warship yard, which will be dependent on Government contracts, will leave the rest of British Shipbuilders as a hopelessly non-viable institution, will the Prime Minister now acknowledge that privatisation has become her party's clause 4 and that the latest decision is a triumph of ideology over common sense?

The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the auditors Arthur Young McLelland Moores have issued a statement making it clear that they did not criticise the Government. They have denied expressing any opinion whatever on the merit or otherwise of privatisation. The report is wrong. The whole of British Shipbuilders has


been dependent upon subsidies from the intervention fund for a considerable time, and since 1979 the Government have put in £1·1 billion to assist British Shipbuilders.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the chairman of British Shipbuilders said in evidence that there was no country in which merchant shipbuilding existed without Government support?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether that is correct. I know that large subsidies are given to shipbuilding the world over. Certainly considerable subsidies are given in this country. For example, the £1·1 billion given in support of British Shipbuilders since 1979 amounts to over £20,000 for each current employee.

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave earlier.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Mrs. Parry, the South Wales miner's wife —[Interruption.] who said in a radio broadcast—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We all have lapses of memory.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree with Mrs. Parry, the South Wales miner's wife —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to allow the hon. Gentleman to ask his question.

Mr. Thurnham: Mrs. Party said that she would like the miners' union to hold democratic ballots and the miners to be free of intimidation if they return to work. Does my right hon. Friend not think it ironic that the leaders of the supposedly democratic Labour party are suddenly struck dumb—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question. The Prime Minister cannot be responsible for what Opposition hon. Members may think.

The Prime Minister: I got the drift of my hon. Friend's question. He wants a ballot for the coal workers, and he believes that there should be a ballot while they are on strike. I know that in April the Leader of the Opposition also thought that there should be a ballot —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. David Steel.

Mr. Steel: After the biggest rise in mortgage rates for five years, does the Prime Minister still agree with this sentence in the 1979 Conservative party manifesto—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Yes, I am reading. It says:
Mortgage rates have risen steeply because of the Government's financial mismanagement.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is very well aware of the reasons why the interest rates went up. They had been kept disconnected from American interest rates for a very long time, but when we came to the period when strikes were beginning to have an effect those interest rates had to go up. The market took them up and the Government had to validate what the market had done. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, I always regret any increase in interest rates, and I am the first to wish for the time when they can come down again.

Mr. Bermingham: Perhaps the Prime Minister might find time during her busy day to explain to hon. Members and others why, if the economy is in the healthy state that she and her Ministers claim, the City is so worried?

The Prime Minister: I thought that the exchange rate, for example, was going very well yesterday. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the City is so worried when the financial index is well over 750—at about 770—what did he think when it was down to 140 under the Labour Government?

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is the Prime Minister aware that the million or so residents of Cornwall and Devon are within seven to 10 days of having their water supply reduced to seven hours a day—and that is if they are lucky? Will she check today that her Minister is doing all that is possible to approve orders that will enable the water authority to increase the amount of water taken from rivers and reduce the amount wasted through reservoirs? Furthermore, will the right hon. Lady consider the temporary appointment of a Minister to ensure that all that can possibly be done is done to reduce the impact of this undoubted difficulty?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not think that the appointment of a special Minister for that purpose would help. I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction will be making a statement tomorrow about the matter which the hon. Gentleman has raised, and that there will be a statement later today, about Wales.

Mr. Kinnock: There was much concern this morning over the news that Standard Telephones had made a serious takeover bid for ICL. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear to all concerned that she will use her Government's power to ensure that ICL, our only major independent computer company, remains in British control?

The Prime Minister: Standard Telephones is now a British company; it is not an American-owned company. The matter will be considered by the Director General of Fair Trading and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under the normal rules.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister appears to be misinformed. "Who Owns Whom" clearly states that Standard Telephones is a subsidiary of ITT, which is an American company. Notwithstanding that, and as the yobs behind her drowned out the right hon. Lady's words, I again ask her whether she will absolutely ensure, in everyone's hearing, that there can be no question of this major computer company being under other than British control?

The Prime Minister: I inquired about the matter this morning and understand that Standard Telephones is now a British company. It has made a bid for ICL and the matter will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry after the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading under the normal rules.

Mr. Ward: Since my right hon. Friend was not heard clearly earlier, will she now take the opportunity to say a word in praise of those miners who have had the courage to go back to work in the face of all intimidations?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Many of those who have returned to work were in areas where the National Union of Mineworkers branches had voted convincingly against a strike and for staying at work. Indeed, in the National Coal Board report there is a whole list of such areas. In Nottingham, they voted 73 per cent., in Cumberland 78 per cent., in South Derbyshire 84 per cent., in Leicestershire 89 per cent. and so on against a strike. I believe that it is right to want to keep the rule book of the NUM as the Nottinghamshire miners have done, that, it is right to give the industry a good prospect for the future, and that it is right to want to work to keep families. I do exactly as my hon. Friend asked and give every support to those who are returning to work for the future of their industry.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wardell: In view of the rumours circulating in my constituency that the BSC corporate plan is being deliberately delayed until the miners' strike is over, will the Prime Minister now give a guarantee to the House that there is and will be nothing in that plan that will create more unemployment among BSC workers?

The Prime Minister: I have not seen the British Steel corporate plan and cannot say what it is likely to contain. I think that the threat to the jobs of BSC workers comes from the strike of the miners.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the presence of pickets outside the home of a man who wants to go to work is yet a further intrusion into individual freedom and liberty and can only harm the public standing and reputation of the trade union movement?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that some of the scenes of intimidation and violence that we have seen and the assembly of pickets outside houses, which is wholly and uttterly wrong, is recognised as wrong by all right thinking people. They wish to see that it does not happen and I hope that leaders of other trade unions will make their views felt about it.

Mr. Loyden: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 26 July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Loyden: Will the Prime Minister have a look at the Standing Charges (Abolition) Bill, introduced yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington,

North (Mr. Corbyn)? As many families and elderly and sick people are now finding the cost of heating a matter of luxury rather than need, will the right hon. Lady approve and support the Bill when it comes before the House?

The Prime Minister: No. We inquired into standing charges some time ago and they were reduced under certain circumstances. There are quite a number of families for whom the abolition of standing charges would not be advantageous.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the report on the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), which is far more courageous than the attitude taken by the Leader of the Opposition? Is not that being responsible?

The Prime Minister: I believe that most people are against the violence and intimidation that has taken place outside pits and the homes of certain miners. Most people believe that there should be a ballot in the coal industry and for the future of that industry it would be advisable for people to go back to work. I believe, too, that most people understand the case for the closure of uneconomic pits because of the tremendous burden on the taxpayer should they all remain open.

Mr. Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition made a statement during Prime Minister's Question Time which concerns my constituency.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman started to say that it was a point of order which arose out of Question Time, but it must be a matter on which I can rule.

Mr. Hayes: The right hon. Gentleman's statement was both inaccurate and positively dangerous to jobs in my constituency and this country. The Leader of the Opposition said that STC was owned by the United Stages of America.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Prime Minister clarified the matter.

Mr. Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For many weeks we have had points of order and questions from both sides of the House about improving Prime Minister's Question Time. Would it be helpful if each night after 10.30 the questions that are planted by the Prime Minister and are unable to be read by her Back Benchers could be read out and the Prime Minister could have the opportunity to read the replies.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the most helpful suggestion would be for the Prime Minister to be heard in silence and for those who question her to be heard in silence, too.

Mr. Terry Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we ensure that planted questions are remembered?

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for the week after the summer Adjournment?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the Army, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 23 OCTOBER—Motions on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order, and on the Fire Services (Northern Ireland) Order.
WEDNESDAY 24 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Bill.
Proceedings on the Rent (Scotland) Bill [Lords], the Foster Children Bill (Scotland) Bill [Lords], and the Building Bill [Lords], which are all consolidation measure.
THURSDAY 25 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
FRIDAY 26 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the development of higher education provision, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House may also be asked to consider any other Lords amendments and messages which may be received.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate that Government business will also be taken in the week commencing 29 October.
It is expected that the new Session will be opened on Tuesday 6 November.

Mr. Kinnock: We shall hear a statement later today about the water shortage in Wales. Why must be wait longer for a statement on the water shortage in England? The problem should be tackled nationally. Why are the Government so disorganised in their approach to a great and growing problem that is affecting so many areas of the country?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be a full statement on the Civil Aviation Authority report before the recess? The Secretary of State for Transport has created a civil war in the industry by implementing by stealth some of the CAA's recommendations on route transfers. In view of the great anxiety caused by the threat to thousands of jobs and to the future of civil aviation in this country, will he tell us why we have not had a statement already?
We shall want an early debate in Government time on the report of the Select Committee on Social Services on funding for the National Health Service as soon as we return in October. The report gives the lie to the Prime Minister's claim that the Health Service is safe in her hands by demonstrating that the rise in expenditure has not been 17 per cent. but, in truth, 7 per cent. There are other matters which deserve the consideration of the House, but I hope that we can look forward to a debate on the report as quickly as possible.

Mr. Biffen: On the question of a statement on the water situation in England, I am sorry that the right hon.

Gentleman feels aggrieved that the statments are being made on successive days. If that is a difficulty which can be avoided in future, I am sure that through the usual channels we shall do all that we can to secure it.
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the important Civil Aviation Authority report was debated last night following the Consolidated Fund Bill, and I cannot helpfully add to what was said then from the Treasury Bench. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is giving urgent consideration to the CAS report, and I know that the Leader of the Opposition will agree that this is a complex and important matter which deserves the most careful consideration. Perhaps we might keep in touch through the usual channels.
Finally, as to the question of a debate on the report on the funding of the Health Service, I am sure that we can consider that in the autumn.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: In view of the fact that there is obviously a possibility that some agreement will be arrived at during the recess over the future of Hong Kong, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that should that happen we would hope for an early debate on any such agreement?

Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly bear that point in mind.

Mr. Alfred Morris: May I press the right hon. Gentleman on the need for a statement before the recess from the Secretary of State for Transport on the Civil Aviation Authority's report on airline competition policy? If there is no statement, may we have an assurance that no decisions will be taken behind the House's back during the recess?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot add to what I said to the Leader of the Opposition, but I shall most certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir Peter Emery: My right hon. Friend will know that the first report of the Select Committee on Procedure will be published tomorrow. As its recommendations concerning speeches will affect every hon. Member, will he do two things? First, will he see whether the report can be debated, if possible, during the week of 29 July, during this Session. Secondly, will he urge Members to read the report during the time that we are away so that they will be prepared to debate it when we return?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the authorship of the report will command the reading appetite of the House, but I am very happy to add my endorsement to what I am sure will be the opinion of many others about the importance of the report and its utility to the House. I shall bear in mind the necessity to have it debated as soon as soon as possible.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we have a debate on the "Ethnic Surveys of Non-Industrial Staff in the Civil Service in the North-West and Avon"?. The report was deliberately hidden by the Government so that when I asked a question last week the Minister involved said that the document had been lodged in the Library. It had just been lodged, in defective form, so that we could not get it before. That is no way to treat the House. The document shows a scandal which the Government were trying to hide. May we have a debate on the matter on the first possible opportunity?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. and learned Member is making serious allegations about the propriety of ministerial conduct. Of course I shall look into the matter as I am sure that there was no malice in anything that happened.
No provision for a debate has been made in the business that I have announced, and I cannot see any likelihood of its being included.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The Leader of the House may be aware that some of us, on both sides of the House, who recently have had an opportunity to investigate and discuss this matter have concluded that Parliament would be well served by an organisation similar to the Office of Technology Assessment. He may not be aware that my attempts to raise this matter on the Consolidated Fund failed on the rather interesting ground that no Minister would be responsible for such expenditure—indeed, that the Chairman of the House of Commons Commission alone, who does not answer questions, would have to deal with it. As the matter arouses considerable interest and this example is now being followed by no fewer than three European Parliaments, may we have at least a half day's debate on it early when we resume?

Mr. Biffen: I am fascinated by the discovery of public expenditure for which there is no ministerial responsibility, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on having discovered such a concept. I very much hope that he will try his hand at all the opportunities available for a private Member to raise this matter, because I cannot immediately offer the prospect of Government time.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is to be an important statement on water and I have had notification of two Standing Order No. 10 applications. There then follows an important Back-Bench opportunity for debate, so I shall limit questions to a further 10 minutes on this matter.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cunmock and Doon Valley): Is the Leader of the House aware of the great concern at the effects of the drought in Scotland, in the south-west of Scotland in particular? With no disrespect to Wales or England, may I ask when we can have a statement on its effects in Scotland?

Mr. Biffen: I think that we are to have a measured experiment to see whether ministerial statements have absolutely any impact on the drought.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: In view of the fact that opinion among miners and miners' wives seems to be ebbing away from the intransigent line taken by Mr. Scargill, and since fears about that policy are being voiced even by Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), will my right hon. Friend stand ready to have an early debate when the House returns, if the miners' strike has collapsed during the recess?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of that proposition. I am sure that a debate would be of great interest to the House.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The Leader of the House will know that the Secretary of State for Transport has now had in his possession since the end of June the British Rail strategy for the inter-city programme and electrification of the east coast route. Since the Secretry of State for Transport gave an

undertaking that he would try to make a statement before the recess, will the right hon. Gentleman use his best endeavours to ensure that vie have one next week?

Mr. Biffen: I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that point about the railway programme.

Mr. David Crouch: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the limelight that has been attracted to the other place in recent weeks? Has he read this morning's report that the other place is to give a six months' trial to its being televised? Does he agree with the decision of this House when the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) raised the matter and we voted on it, and does he realise that we, too, should like a little limelight?

Mr. Biffen: When we exhaust the run-of-the-mill controversies of politics, we can turn to the sharp bitterness that this topic will evoke. I realise that many hon. Members have signed an early-day motion, which reflects the general interest of the House that the matter should be considered.

Mr. David Young: I am worried about the right hon. Gentleman's rather insipid reply on Hong Kong. Many of us with constituencies in the northwest have large Chinese communities who are extremely worried about the issues arising out there. They are particularly interested in knowing how people are to be consulted about their future. May I press the right hon. Gentleman specifically to state the Government's intentions to consult the House about the negotiations which are now taking place and which are due to be finalised by September?

Mr. Biffen: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is conducting most difficult negotiations with great skill, and certainly he is very anxious that the House should be informed at all stages. I take account of the representation just made, as I did that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle). Certainly I shall bear the matter in mind.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we on this side of the House are very pleased to hear that, through the usual channels, discussion will take place about whether it is possible to make an announcment before the recess about the decision in relation to the extraordinary CAA document on. British Airways? Will my right hon. Friend take account of the fact that it also impinges severely on the expected decision on a future London airport?

Mr. Biffen: I take account of that. My remarks to the Leader of the Opposition were carefully drawn and were intended to be as helpful as they could be. Certainly the subject raises wide-ranging considerations, including airport policy, as my hon. Friend says, so it would not be wise to proceed precipitately.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Is the Leader of the House aware that when at least two major Departments — the Departments of Social Services and Trade and Industry—prepare recommendations or regulations, they have extensive consultations outside the House, and that the advance documents are not available to hon. Members at that time? Will he seek to ensure that all Secretaries of State involve hon. Members in discussions at an early stage rather than too late?

Mr. Biffen: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He speaks with authority, and is respected in the House. If he has knowledge of a particular instance of general anxiety and refers it to me, I shall certainly have it investigated.

Mr. John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that if the miners' strike unfortunately continues into the summer recess the Government will make every attempt to make the issues clear to the public—the threat to personal liberty and the threat to constitutional government? Will the Government also make it clear that they will not hesitate to use emergency powers, should they be necessary, to safeguard the lives of ordinary people, particularly the humblest in the land, who are those most hurt by strikes?

Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for his faith in the efficacy of Ministers in the advocacy of the cause, and I hope that I can accommodate him on every point that he has raised.

Mr. Dick Douglas: If the Leader of the House has that faith in the Government's case, why is it that, although we are now in the 21st week of the miners' strike, the Secretary of State for Energy who, by reason of his office, is responsible for the nation's energy assets, has failed to meet the union's leadership? Can he persuade his right hon. Friend to do that? Will he ensure during the coming weeks—indeed, days—that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy lives up to the office for which he is paid?

Mr. Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has handled the ministerial aspects of this dispute admirably, and it is his very success that causes the grudging comments that I now have to listen to from the hon. Gentleman. I advise him to go away and have a good holiday.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Has my right hon. Friend any view about how or when the House will consider the first report of the Committee of Privileges, which vindicated the complaint against the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Mr. Biffen: I think it would be wise for the House to have a chance to consider the findings of the Committee of Privileges, and we can perhaps consider the matter further in the light of reactions.

Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 931 about brutality in Hong Kong against civilians and children.
[That this House deplores the action of the Hong Kong Police in using physical violence against civilians in squatter areas, including women and children, the deployment of 40 Blue Berets from the Special Police Tactical Unit and the handcuffing of young children; reminds the Hong Kong Government that its colonial rule is coming to an end; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to ensure that similar tactics will not be used in the future.]
Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to ensure that no similar disgraceful incidents occur during the summer recess, otherwise there may be serious riots in the colony?

Mr. Biffen: I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend is currently consulting the authorities in Hong Kong on this matter. I shall certainly draw his attention to it.

Dr. Keith Hampson: As there is such deep public concern about the fact that a local council can run up an advertising budget of £10 million on advertising against the Government, is it not surprising that we are not to have a statement from the Government to the effect that some action will be taken to stop the GLC and metropolitan councils from advertising on this scale? May we have an assurance as soon as possible that we shall not replace one irresponsible body in London with an advisory body in London?

Mr. Biffen: Initially, at any rate, my hon. Friend will have a good opportunity to ventilate that anxiety in the debates on Monday.

Mr. Donald Coleman: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the question of the death grant has been raised in the House from time to time. May we have a statement next week on the matter? If the right hon. Gentleman intends to take up the suggestion about Ministers propagandising on the miners' strike, will he arrange for Ministers to go to the mining communities where such matters are understood?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that all constructive suggestions about the Government's campaign will be thoughtfully received. There is no prospect of the death grant being debated either next week or in the first week after the summer recess.

Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend will probably have read a report of last night's debate on the Civil Aviation Authority and noted the overwhelming praise for British Airways, Lord King and the staff and the magnificent turnabout which they have achieved. However, during the debate there was massive criticism of the CAA document for the Minister to consider. Mention was made of public utterances by the chairman of the CAA. That was deplorable. Is it not time, therefore, to debate the CAA, bearing in mind the fact that it was formed well over 10 years ago?

Mr. Biffen: There is no prospect of a debate on the CAA next week and no arrangements have been made for such a debate in the first week after the summer recess.

Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind that you said that it would be necessary to curtail business questions because two applications under Standing Order No. 10 were in the pipeline, is it possible for you to rule out completely Standing Order No. 10 applications on Thursday?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows that that is not possible.

Water Supplies (Wales)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the water situation in Wales.
Since February of this year rainfall in the Principality has been abnormally low, and over the whole of the Welsh water authority area has only been 44 per cent. of the longterm average. The authority has been monitoring the water supply carefully since Easter and has taken measures to conserve stocks of water held in reservoirs by application for drought orders to reduce compensation water discharges from reservoirs and to increase abstraction from rivers. The authority also sought to reduce consumption by banning the use of hosepipes and garden sprinklers. In spite of those measures, reservoir levels have continued to fall and further action will be necessary to conserve the remaining stocks of water until there is sufficient rainfall to replenish them. Nobody can be certain when this will be, but meteorological records point to substantial rain by the third week of October and the WWA has formulated its emergency plans accordingly.
The areas most seriously affected are south-east Wales, Preseli, with a population of about 40,000 people, and the Lleyn peninsula where the influx of summer tourists more than doubles the population to about 66,000. However, the shortage of water in south-east Wales gives the greatest cause for concern because some 1 million people are involved. The WWA has therefore set up a drought liaison committee for south-east Wales with representatives from the local authorities, the health authorities, my Department, the CBI, the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales and other bodies. The committee met last Monday when the WWA presented the facts about the supply and outlined its plans for meeting the shortage.
In the first instance, there will be a ban on the non-essential users of water such as automatic car washing plant and a drought order has been signed to put that into effect. If the dry weather continues, the WWA will then need to ensure a further reduction in consumption to about 50 per cent. of normal from 1 September. It intends to do this by shutting off supplies to domestic consumers for up to 17 hours per day; industrialists and agriculturalists will be relied upon to make their own plans for reducing consumption by a similar amount. The organisations represented on the drought liaison committee now have a month to consider the implications of those measures and to make their own plans accordingly. Further meetings of the committee will take place as necessary to resolve any outstanding problems before the WWA begins to shut off supplies.
Problems of varying severity exist in other parts of the WWA area and appropriate measures are being taken to limit consumption and to make the best use of the available stocks of water. The powers available under the Drought Act 1976 are being, and will continue to be, used to the full and there is close contact between the WWA and my Department so that I am kept regularly informed of the situation.
Finally, I pay tribute to the great efforts being made by WWA personnel to overcome the problems caused by the exceptionally dry weather of recent months.

Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has made a serious statement. He used the word, "emergency". Why did he not come to the House earlier? Is it true that in one month's time half of the population of Wales—about 1,400,000—face daily shutoffs of water for up to 17 hours? Without substantial rainfall, our reservoirs will almost certainly fail to service our vital needs in two months' time. Why did not the Secretary of State for Wales rapidly complete the water transfer scheme for the Wye and Usk rivers, which would have enabled south Wales to cope effectively with the drought? Did not the Labour Government bequeath a scheme that could have been completed by 1983 instead of by May 1985? Have not Ministers recklessly gambled on there being no such drought again? Have they not failed to recognise the importance of the transfer scheme?
The chief executive of the Welsh water authority said:
It is certainly true that were phase one of the River Wye-River Usk transfer scheme in operation now, the drought could probably have been averted… We would always have welcomed an injection of funds from central Government." 
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the comment made by the Western Mail in its first leader yesterday? It said that:
the Welsh Office is falling down in its duty to the people of Wales.
Are not the Government's cash limits disastrously inadequate to develop the water grid that Wales needs?
What is the estimate of potential job losses and lay-offs and the impact of cut-offs upon the manufacturing and service industries in Wales? The Minister should be aware that some Welsh valleys suffer male unemployment rates of more than 20 per cent. Long-term unemployment in the valleys rises to about 40 per cent. How precisely will the Minister assist the inceasingly vulnerable dairy farming and tourist industries in Preseli and Lleyn, for example? Does he promise that there will be no premature cut-offs in Blaenau Gwent, upper Cynon Valley and Rhondda areas? Our valley communities shelter some of Britain's poorest people and a high number of elderly citizens. They need special consideration. So do those factories located amid housing estates that face water cut-offs. The right hon. Gentleman has never had a mandate to lead the people of Wales. Is he aware that we have no confidence in him, that his stewardship has been poor and that he has let down the people of Wales?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman asked about a statement in the House. I have reported to Members representing Welsh constituencies in the Grand Committee and at Welsh Questions. I have come forward to make a statement today. During the previous drought in 1976, the then Secretary of State for Wales never made a statement on the subject in the House. Indeed, the reaction of the Labour Government in 1976 was to introduce expenditure cuts of £60 million in 1977–78 and a further £60 million the following year, after a 10 per cent. moratorium in 1976. The then National Water Council said that as a result
Some… measures to provide against a recurrence of severe drought mentioned in the recent 'Water Supply Prospects in 1977' will now have to be postponed.
I also remind the hon. Gentleman that during that drought, which was not as severe as the present one, cut-offs began on 19 July and were extended at the beginning of August. Because of the substantial measures taken since 1976, we have been able to avoid the possibility of cut-offs until the beginning of September. A substantial number of schemes were completed during that period.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Wye transfer scheme. That scheme was not introduced to deal with the drought emergency in 1976. It was part of a longer plan, based on the judgment of water needs in Wales over the last part of the century. It was brought forward and looked at more urgently in the light of the 1976 experience. Very soon after coming into Government I gave approval for that scheme. It was then considered by the water authority, in the light of current assessments of water need, and plans were proceeded with on that basis. The intention was to complete the supply of 15 million gallons a day for the Wye transfer by next year. Those decisions were taken in 1981.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about cash limits. There have been no cash limits on the water authority. The water authority is provided with an EFL and in every single year since this Government came to office the Welsh water authority has substantially underspent its EFL.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Western Mail article. That article was extraordinarily ill-informed in that it suggested that supplies of water going to the Severn-Trent area were having some effect on south-east Wales. There is no truth whatsoever in that suggestion. The limitation is on the amount of water that we can pump out of the lower reaches of the Wye and the amount of water in the reservoirs of south-east Wales.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the effect on jobs. The 1976 industry showed itself extremely adaptable and I am sure it will meet the needs at the present time. The hon. Gentleman referred to problems, particularly those of the Heads of the Valleys, where there are major water shortages in the reservoirs on the Brecon Beacons that supply the Heads of the Valleys, but it is as a result of major schemes carried out since 1976 that we are able to transfer large quantities of water into south-east Wales, both from the Wye and the west, and to transfer water around a local grid and, indeed, up the lower reaches of the valleys. It is because of those measures that it has been possible to take the decision not to impose restrictions in the Heads of the Valleys before restrictions are introduced elsewhere in south-east Wales.

Mr. Ian Grist: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we could have had a lot more investment in our water industry if everyone had been prepared to pay much higher water charges, that there has been no restriction on investment by the water authority, that his statement this afternoon is greatly appreciated by those of us who remember the lack of any statement in the past from the Labour Government and that Labour Members are showing a fine turn of hypocrisy this afternoon?

Mr. Edwards: I can confirm that one of the factors that the water authority has to take into account in planning its long-term capital programme is the effect on charges. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that there has been no constraint as a result of borrowing limits set by the Government. What has constrained the authority is the effect on charges that a massively increased capital programme would have had. It has had to balance its priorities, both in terms of the needs of the capital programme and the effect on charges, and take an overall judgment.
I can tell my hon. Friend that far from having cut the capital programme in any way, though we announced in advance what capital expenditure was likely to be, the water authority has exceeded those planned amounts in each of the last two financial years and no action has been taken against it. Indeed, it has received our congratulations on it efforts to contain expenditure.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Tourism, manufacturing and agriculture industries in Wales all need a comprehensive and reliable water system which will enable them to exploit the great natural resources of Wales. Will the Secretary of State come out of the corner, into which he regularly retreats, of political slugging and tell us when Wales will have the investment that will give it that comprehensive and reliable water system?

Mr. Edwards: Perhaps I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that over the past few years the following schemes have been completed—the Llyn Brianne-river Tywi scheme, which is enabling us to take 4 million gallons of water per day into south-east Wales at the moment, the Taf Fawr-Taf Fechan link, which is proving extremely important, the Taf Fechan-eastern valleys link; the Llandegfedd aqueduct-Taf Fawr link and the Wye transfer scheme which is enabling us to transfer this week some 10 million gallons of water per day. Therefore, substantial progress is being made to improve the system.
If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to urge water users in Wales to pay higher charges we could, of course, speed up that scheme even more.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not pretty sickening to hear both Opposition parties, who ruthlessly exploit the natural reluctance of the people in Wales to pay higher water charges, now rounding on my right hon. Friend and complaining that more money was not spent? It is particularly inappropriate for them to complain that the statement comes so late, as my right hon. Friend has taken the first possible opportunity to make a statement and no such statement was ever made by the Labour Government.

Mr. Edwards: I note that this is the second statement that I have made in 10 days on a subject on which my predecessor never made a statement. The other matter was commented on in an early-day motion. The Government have spent some £75 million on improvements to the water supply system in the area and the water authority is undertaking a massive capital programme. The constraint that it has to bear in mind is the effect on charges and the need to balance its overall priorities.

Mr. Leo Abse: Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that South-east Wales, where this grim visitation will take place in September, will not regard what is taking place as an act of God, but will rightly regard it as yet another piece of folly and irresponsibility on the part of the Secretary of State for Wales? Why does he not admit that his failure to monitor the capital expenditure of the Welsh water authority and the failure to ensure that the Usk-Wye scheme was implemented has led to this result? By trying to shift responsibility on to the Welsh water authority and by saying that it has underspent, he is only revealing still further his irresponsibility in not having identified the problem and put it squarely to the Welsh authority which could have saved south-east Wales from this disaster. It is high time that the Secretary of State


for Wales made an apology to the people of Wales for what is happening. He should be contrite and not follow the example of his mistress, in always alleging that responsibility lies somewhere other than with himself.

Mr. Edwards: I shall not follow the characteristically charlatan pretence of the hon. Member that Ministers can somehow miraculously solve the worst drought since records began and the problems that that drought is bound to produce. I point out to him that in 1976, under the Labour Government, the first shut-off in his constituency occurred for 13 hours a day on 19 July. We are avoiding such cut-offs until the beginning of September. We all remember the stand pipes that were placed in Welsh valleys under his Government, which undertook a slashing reduction of water authority investment because they had made such a total mess of running the economy.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members will have heard what I said earlier about the business which follows—important Back Bench business. I shall allow questions to continue until 4.20 pm, which will allow a full half hour on this statement. However, I ask hon. Members to put their questions briefly.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Nobody in Wales will be very impressed with the Secretary of State and what he had to say. Welsh communities face water rationing and heavy fines, and industrial users find themselves facing a serious future. The Secretary of State says that he is not God, but he is Old Nick here. Will the Secretary of State say on how many occasions drought orders have been applied for and restrictions applied to water supplies to domestic consumers since 1979? Despite what he has been saying he should accept that it is a fact that he has placed restrictions on the Welsh water authority which have prevented implementation of the plans drawn up in 1976 to deal with droughts, particularly in south-east Wales. Does he want to go down as the man who caused Welsh people to go thirsty and, perhaps unwashed?

Mr. Edwards: The scheme drawn up during the 1970s was not a drought scheme, and it was launched by this Government, not by their predecessors. There is absolutely no truth in the idea that it is constraints by this Government that have delayed the scheme. As I pointed out, the EFLs set have been under-utilised in every single year. The limit in 1982–83 set by the Government was £25·25 million, and the Welsh water authority spent £22·6 million. In 1983–84, we set a limit of £23 million, and the Welsh water authority spent £18·6 million.

Mr. Brynmor John: Does the Secretary of State accept what his Under-Secretary told the Welsh Grand Committee, that the Wye-Usk transfer could have been completed in May 1983? If he does, can he tell the House why he has not insisted that it should be completed?

Mr. Edwards: It was never intended or planned by anyone that the scheme should be totally completed by that date. Indeed, it has never been intended that the full transfer and full use of 30 million gallons should be available before the early 1990s. The decision was taken by the Welsh water authority in 1981 on the basis of its assessment of water requirements in south-east Wales in the latter part of the century, and the scheme was revised because it has now been assessed that water usage has

declined. As I pointed out, although the scheme is obviously important during drought, that was never its prime purpose.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the Secretary of State seriously saying, in spite of all that was said at the time of the Select Committee report, that he did not interfere in the financial regime of the Welsh water authority—in respect of charges, for example'? What precisely did he mean when he said that industrial and agricultural users will be relied upon to reduce their consumption by a similar amount? What does "be relied upon" mean? Will there be monitoring, or what? How will that be enforced?

Mr. Edwards: If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I was alone in asking the Welsh water authority to hold down its charges, that would be very hypocritical. It has been the universal demand of every Opposition Member and most people in Wales. It is one of the factors that the water authority rightly has to take into account. It is absurd hypocrisy for people to pretend otherwise. I utterly reject it.
We are having meetings with industry and asking it to restrict its usage to 50 per cent., and I am confident that it will make every effort to do so. If people can save water substantially in the coming weeks and there is moderate rainfall in August, we shall be able to postpone the introduction of the scheme, I hope. But that depends on significant rainfall during the period and a substantial saving in the use of water. There is no other soluion to the problem.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the work of the personnel of the Welsh water authority who are carrying out their duties at this difficult time. In my constituency lives the new technical services director of that authority, who takes up his duties next week. I see from the front page of last night's Evening Post that there was a horrible crash into Mr. Earp's house. His wife fortunately managed to escape with no injury whatever. None the less, she had been—I quote—
watering flowers moments earlier.
May I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that when personnel of the Welsh water authority, their husbands or wives water their flowers, they use bath water and not water from the tap?

Mr. Edwards: I am not aware of exactly what restrictions apply in the area. South-west Wales does not have the same water problem that south-east Wales has. But I shall certainly take the opportunity, as the hon. Gentleman has asked, to say that everyone should be encouraged to use washing up water and so on to water their flowers, and should not use hose pipes, thereby wasting water.

Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Secretary of State agree that his statement this afternoon has been totally unacceptable? The people of Wales want water not words. The Secretary of State seeks to blame all our problems on inadequate rainfall. He makes no mention at all of inadequate financing of the Welsh water authority, of inadequate planning, of inadequate management or of inadequate leadership from the Welsh Office. In the light of the prevailing circumstances in Wales, will the Secretary of State reconsider first, his position on the need


for a national grid and, secondly, his position on introducing rebates for industrial, commercial and domestic consumers?

Mr. Edwards: I really think that for the hon. Gentleman to make some of his remarks against the background of the worst drought since records began is to credit Ministers and, indeed, planners at the water authority with an ability to deal with every situation. Frankly, it is misleading to suggest that such an ability exists. As for a national grid, I agree with statements made by Labour Ministers at the time that to introduce a major national grid would be a massive and costly exercise that would take a very long time. What we are doing, and making considerable progress towards, is establishing a local grid in the south Wales area. It is because we have made substantial progress in this direction that we are making a much better success of handling this more severe drought than was made in 1976 by the Labour Government, who had water rationing in mid-July.

Dr. John Marek: Will the Secretary of State consider his answers to questions and realise that it is getting a little boring for the Opposition to hear him telling us about—and misrepresenting in the process—the actions of the previous Labour Administration? Will the Secretary of State concentrate his mind on the inadequacies of the present Administration? Will he admit that the drought in 1976 was of the order of seriousness of the drought of 1948 and that under the previous Labour Administration there was action to put together a plan for a water transfer scheme, which his Administration have delayed? Can he guarantee that he will now treat that

scheme as a priority and ensure that the water transfer scheme, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), will be a top priority for his Department? If so, will the Secretary of State also undertake to have careful planning in his Department so that we do not need miracles?

Mr. Edwards: As the hon. Gentleman clearly has not been listening for the past half hour I shall tell him again that the records show that the present drought is by far the worst since records began. It is significantly worse than that in 1976. I shall also tell him that the Government have in no way restrained either the new Wye transfer scheme or the other schemes. Clearly, in the light of present events, the water authority will have to reconsider its priorities and take decisions accordingly.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Welsh wailing and wind that we have heard from the Opposition today carries little weight in my part of Herefordshire, which is served by the Welsh water authority? We already pay far more for our water than those living in Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the robust reorganisation that he undertook in his early days as Secretary of State has left the Welsh water authority far better equipped and financially better organised and prepared to deal with such emergencies in the future?

Mr. Edwards: It is undoubtedly true that not only did the Welsh water authority inherit a poor system in many parts of Wales but that the previous organisation was not well equipped to sort out those problems. We have made major improvements to the organisation and that is why the water authority is making such successful attempts to deal with an unprecedentedly difficult situation.

British Shipbuilders

Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the true and parlous state of British Shipbuilders' finances as revealed in public statements today.
Yesterday we had a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which went on for a long time and which purported to review the state of British Shipbuilders and its plans for the future, including the sale of the warship-building yards, which were a notable and controversial feature of that statement. Now, 24 hours later, after two public sittings of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, it is apparent that major facts that were not available to us yesterday have now come into the public gaze that profoundly affect the urgency of the financial problems of British Shipbuilders.
I refer to two matters. First, it has become plain that responsibility for the completion of the British Petroleum oil rig at the Scott Lithgow yard remains with British Shipbuilders, in spite of the sale at very good terms and benefit to Trafalgar House. Unless that contract is completed—British Shipbuilders now has no possibility of exercising direct responsibility itself—a penalty of no less than £78 million, or the demand that it should purchase the oil rig from British Petroleum, will have to be met. That will have a profound effect on the accounts of British Shipbuilders.
The second fact that has been revealed by the chairman of British Shipbuilders in his evidence today is that the proceeds of the compulsory sale of the profitable warship-building yards that are to be taken from British Shipbuilders will not accrue to British Shipbuilders but will go straight to the Treasury. That is quite unlike the arrangements that have been announced for the sale of Jaguar in relation to British Leyland. Apart from the appalling lack of candour to which we were treated yesterday in our exchanges with the Secretary of State, there are now, inevitably—this reflects the gravity and urgency of the situation — serious doubts about the financial viability of British Shipbuilders.
As the House knows, the auditors qualified their approval of the accounts in the report published yesterday with the Secretary of State's statement. The small print of the accountants' qualifications has now been given a far more visible and dramatic meaning in the proceedings before the Select Committee, which I have just revealed. I am urging that we should now adjourn and debate the motion that the financial state of British Shipbuilders has been left in a truly parlous and difficult position and that it is vital for the commercial reputation and for the ongoing viability of British Shipbuilders that all doubts be cleared up and removed at the earliest possible moment so that British Shipbuilders can carry out its proper functions.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the true and parlous state of British Shipbuilders' finances as revealed in public statements today.
I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Member has said but regret that I do not consider that the matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you consider referring the question of Standing Order No. 10 to the Select Committee on Procedure? The Standing Order makes it plain that even if you, Mr. Speaker, grant a request, the leave of the House must be obtained and there must be 40 hon. Members present to give that leave.
As there have not been anything like 40 hon. Members in the House, and certainly nothing like 40 hon. Members on the Opposition Benches during the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's submission, will you give some consideration to the matter, Mr. Speaker, as the time of the House is frequently wasted by such applications.

Mr. Speaker: Standing Order No. 10 applications are a rather precious Back Bench and Opposition initiative. If the hon. Gentleman feels that the procedure should be changed, it is up to him to refer the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure. I should then be bound by whatever decision is taken.

Bella Magalone

Mr. Stan Thorne: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed deportation of Bella Magalone.
This is the case of a defenceless woman, rather than a shipbuilding industry, but, nevertheless, it merits the attention of the House.
Miss Magalone arrived in the United Kingdom 10 years ago. She overstayed, she was badly advised about immigration rules by a rather unscrupulous gentleman and she subsequently settled in Preston. She has been employed for some years at the Royal Preston hospital as an auxiliary nurse. The senior nursing officer there has written to me giving a high recommendation of Miss Magalone. She is active in St. John Ambulance and in the Catholic community in Preston, and is highly regarded there.
I appealed to the Minister of State, Home Office for compassion in this case. Miss Magalone is 30 years old. If she returns to the Philipines, she will undoubtedly end up living in a boat. In spite of the background to the case, after 10 years in the United Kingdom, in which time she has proved herself an admirable citizen, Miss Magalone should be allowed to remain. As the Minister of State has not given a favourable decision, which I think is deplorable, the matter warrants the attention of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the proposed deportation of Bella Magalone.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this House do meet on Wednesday 1st August at half-past Nine o'clock, that no Questions be taken after half-past Ten o'clock, and that at half-past Three o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question. — [Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Adjournment (Summer)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House at its rising on Wednesday 1st August do adjourn till Monday 22nd October, and that the House shall not adjourn on Wednesday 1st August until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Biffen.]

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the second amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed motion, to leave out '22nd October' and insert '13th August'.
The Opposition have taken the unusual course of tabling an amendment proposing that the House does not adjourn on 1 August. Hon. Members will also have seen on the Order Paper an amendment proposing that we return in the week commencing 13 August and thereafter as necessary. We are resolved to vote on the amendment that has been selected.
The amendment reflects our view of the gravity of the interlocking crises that confront us — economic and industrial, social and political—and our belief that those problems will only intensify in the weeks between 1 August and 22 October. Economic crisis is now upon us. The most vivid expression of that is the recent leap in interest rates of no less than 2¾ per cent. in a single week. The markets, which have been lulled and gulled by the Chancellor's Budget, by his tax cuts and his emphatic assurance that the economy was making a strong recovery, suddenly woke up to the fact that it was a pipe dream, that the recovery was not proceeding, that output was fast receding, that the money supply was growing faster than Ministers said it would or should, and that, more generally, the Government looked in almost every area of affairs that they touched just about as incompetent as they actually are.
In the past four months, the whole economic outlook has clouded and darkened. When he wound up the Budget debate on 19 March the Chancellor went out of his way to contrast the critical words and warnings of the Opposition with what he called a better test: the so-called impartial verdict of the market. He proudly pointed out:
During the week that has elapsed since the Budget the clearing banks' base rates were cut 0·5 per cent. to their lowest level for six years, the mortgage rate was cut by 1 per cent. and the stock market rose by 5 per cent.
Now, just four months later, the minimum lending rate is not 8½ per cent., but 12 per cent.; mortgage interest rate is not 10¼ per cent., but 12¾ per cent.; the share index is not 894, but 770 — a drop of some 14 per cent. The Chancellor himself stressed the enormous importance of interest rates, when he said:
Such reductions are of immense benefit to industry, business and the country".—[Official Report, 19 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 789.]
If that is true of a reduction of a half per cent. in March, how much more damage and harm to industry, business and the country does an increase of 3½ per cent. in July entail? There is not much mystery about that. Every 1 per cent. increase in bank minimum lending rates inflicts an increase of about £250 million in the costs of manufacturing industry.
What we have had since the confident presentation of the March Budget is an increase in the cost burdens on manufacturing industry of about £850 million a year. It is


not just industry that has been clobbered by steeply rising interest rates. Millions of housebuyers, particularly young people struggling with their first mortgages, now face a sharp cut in their living standards and expectations.
No one should imagine that there are corrective forces at work to counter such trends as the year proceeds. The whole structure of interest rates for months ahead has now been altered, as the latest issues of Government stocks and national savings intruments have clearly revealed. The trade deficit is growing, output—at the very best—is on a plateau and unemployment will leap yet again when the school and college leavers register this autumn. The Prime Minister's claim, on 10 July—two days before interest rates shot up by a further 2 per cent.—that
The economy is in good shape"—[Official Report, 10 July 1984; Vol. 63, c. 875.]
is there for all to see, in all its absurdity. On present trends, we could be in deep financial difficulty and economic crisis before the summer is out.
I turn now to the mining dispute—in its 20th week. It is our most ardent wish that a resolution will be found —and long before 22 October. But we are far from certain about that. With the House in recess, there will not be the constant probings of the Government's intentions and of the state of play, nor the pressure for constructive action which the Opposition have persistently advocated thoughout the course of the long dispute.
It is all too plain to us that the Government lack the will to find a solution. Throughout the past 20 weeks they have been active and diligent in organising for victory—and inert and negligent in searching for a reasonable solution. The Secretaries of State for Energy and for Employment have washed their hands of the whole dispute. No talks have been arranged. There have been no initiatives, no mention even of inquiry, conciliation, arbitration or any other means by which men of good will and sense seek to achieve solutions to difficult problems. Even the limited, but indispensable, role of listening to and making contact with the parties has been left to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who hopes to intervene later in the debate.
What are the Government's aims? Bluntly, they believe that with the backing of the state—

Mr. Francis Maude: As the right hon. Gentleman has stepped into the breach, would he like to comment on the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) last night, when he condemned secondary picketing and called for a ballot? Does he accept that that was the first sign of leadership that has come from the Labour Benches?

Mr. Shore: It is up to my hon. Friend to make his own remarks, and to justify them, as I have no doubt he did when he spoke last night when I was not here.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Perhaps my hon. Friend will recall that when my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) spoke at the parliamentary Labour party meeting about three months ago in a debate on this very matter, he did so in extremely strident tones. Those of us who observed and listened to his speech last night came to the conclusion that he is coming over our way. His speech last night was not half as bad as his one three months ago. We are winning him round.

Mr. Michael Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it for this House to be told the internal workings of the parliamentary Labour party in its meetings?

Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) gives way to an hon. Member on either side of the House, that is a matter for him. What that hon. Member says is equally a matter for that hon. Member.

Mr. Shore: I have learnt my lesson about the absurdity of giving way to mischievously motivated Conservative Members with their absurd points of order. Let us keep our eye on the ball.
I was asking what are the Government's aims. Bluntly, they believe that, with the full backing of the state, Mr. MacGregor can win—and they are prepared to pay a very high price to secure that victory. But let us he clear about one thing: the economic crisis that I have already described cannot be blamed upon the mining dispute. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was emphatic about that only three weeks ago on 4 July. When answering the question whether he would give an estimate of the effect on our trade and current national industrial performance of the present coal dispute, he said:
The whole House will be pleased to know that the dispute has had no effect on the output and performance of the vast majority of United Kingdom industries."—[Official Report, 4 July 1984; Vol. 63, c. 303.]
But if it will not do as an alibi for the underlying and intensifying economic crisis, there can be no doubt that, as every week goes by, the costs of the dispute mount. Today's figures of the NCB's losses of £800 million for the year ending 31 March 1984 included only three weeks of the miners' strike, although many more weeks of the ban on overtime. But, as the Government well know, the direct and indirect costs of the strike in public expenditure terms must now be running at well over £1,500 million. The costs in terms of social divisiveness, physical confrontation, hardship for mining families and for whole mining communities and damage to police-community relationships cannot be quantified, but they are appallingly high; and, as the dispute continues, attitudes become increasingly hardened and unyielding.
The Government are weak in many areas, but in their understanding of political and human psychology and their reading of the character of the people of this country they are conspicuously defective. The miners and their communities will not be coerced; they will not be brow-beaten; they will not surrender to the whips of privation. Indeed, such tactics only strengthen their resolve. So the Government can put away any idea that, by fining miners' families £15 a week, by withholding tax rebates, by "toughing it out", by tightening the screws of the social security system, they will win. They will not. What will win in the end is not coercion of the miners but persuasion; and that persuasion will succeed only if it meets the separate but linked anxieties of the great majority of the mining communities.

Mr. Richard Hickmet: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shore: No, I will not.
The Government have to be seen to abandon their original intention of applying to the coal industry and to the sharp question of pit closures the short-term, profit and


loss calculations that they insist on applying almost everywhere else in the economy. Second, the Government must show that they are committed to a thriving and expanding coal industry. Third, they must demonstrate that coal has a seriously considered place in an up-to-date, national fuel economy policy.
Although progress was made at the last round of talks, there is no doubt that the gap that remains is wide and deep. It would be foolish and misleading to suggest that all that is now needed is an acceptable alternative to the words "beneficial exploitation". The dispute is about something much larger: it is about the costs — human and social, direct and indirect, as well as financial—that are to be taken into account in deciding pit development and pit closure policies; it is about the way in which, if that agreement on criteria can be reached, it is to be subsequently implemented at local level; and it is about the whole complex area of specialised economics, the husbanding and costing of non-renewable energy resources, which cannot be dealt with by the conventional and simple approach of short-term profit and loss.
Based on the original "Plan for Coal", a new and serious debate on energy needs and policy in the 1980s and 1990s is long overdue, and it may well provide a framework within which more immediate and pressing matters can find a solution and a proper perspective.

Mr. Hickmet: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are now on the summer Adjournment, and I have always understood that this was a day for Back Benchers. Back Benchers find it difficult enough to get any time to speak in the House as it is. But I note that the Front Bench of the Labour party is here in force. Is that in order, on what is essentially Back Benchers' day?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Every hon. Member has the right to speak, and to give good reason why the House should or should not go into recess. I have heard nothing so far which is out of order.

Mr. Shore: As I was saying, the House of Commons can assist in all the matters that I have reviewed. It would be a tragedy if, in some 12 weeks' time, we were to reassemble with none of the problems of the coal strike in any way advanced, and with the cost and damage, in human and economic terms, still further increased.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shore: We are very conscious that 1984 has brought us a summer of discontent. There is anger, bitterness and violence in the coal fields; there is frustration and deep discontent at the sight of a democratically-elected Government abdicating their responsibilities, and putting the dead weight of their own negativism on to the backs of uniformed police. There is, indeed, the feeling that we have a Government who are completely insensitive to the needs and feelings of the majority of people in the country.
It is not only in the coal fields, but in the inner areas of our great cities that discontent is simmering this summer. In those urban centres today we have terrifyingly high unemployment, idle and alienated youth, racial tension, environmental decay and a pervasive pessimism about the future. Already they have suffered immense direct damage at the hands of the Government.
Councils have been first denied financial help by the Government, then fined and penalised for overspending, and finally—in the case of the metropolitan counties and the GLC—threatened with complete abolition, with their electors refused the right to vote. Then, only two days ago, the Secretary of State announced his appalling decision for the coming year. With yet another cut in the rate support grant — from 51·9 per cent. to 48·8 per cent. —every council in the land faces a reduction in Government grant. The most that any council can expect is that its position in 1985–86 will be no worse than it was in 1984–85. But most councils, including those of all the major cities, are destined to suffer at least a 4 per cent. cut in real terms in their unchanged monetary grant. Now, on top of that, 18 named authorities are to be rate-capped so that their loss will be 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. in a single year.
What is remarkable about the list is that it includes most of the worst-hit areas of inner London, and both the ILEA and the GLC which serve them. The named councils are virtually a roll-call of the inner city partnership priority boroughs in London, together with many other major metropolitan centres in other parts of the country.
Not only our economy but our society is under strain this year. There is thunder in the air: this is indeed a summer of discontent. The House cannot afford to absent itself, at such a time, for so long a span as the Government have provided for. The nation will not understand if Parliament, which is the lightning conductor of its own anger, concerns and frustrations, absents itself during the critical weeks and months that lie ahead. That is why we shall vote for our amendment this evening.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): I apologise to hon. Members on both sides of the House for intervening, albeit briefly, in the debate. But, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has pointed out, this is an unusual Adjournment motion debate, because the Opposition have seen fit to table an amendment and, although the right hon. Gentleman barely referred to the date of 13 August in his remarks, the Opposition amendment is on the Order Paper for all to see.
In my short contribution I shall seek to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's claim that the need to review the crisis in the coal industry is a reason for not adjourning in accordance with the Government's proposals. Let me say that I see no need to accept the right hon. Gentleman's advice on this matter, although my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will wind up in the usual way and will deal with the wide-ranging issues raised in the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Government are not interested in the future of the coal industry is a bit rich. He said that he wished that he could believe that the Government were more committed to the future of the coal industry. That was prerequisite. He should know from the discussions and debates that we have had on coal that this Government have done more than any in recent years to provide for the future of the industry.
The Government have done more than any other in providing for an investment of £2 million a day, in securing a further £3 billion investment over the next four


years and in improving the wages of miners who have now been offered a basic rate of £144 if the 5·2 per cent. is accepted.
Furthermore, this Government have done more than any other to provide for the right, correct and humane way of dealing with those who see fit to leave the industry, while at the same time guaranteeing a job to every single miner who wishes to remain in the industry. If that is not a convincing demonstration of the Government's commitment to the industry, I do not know what is, and frankly I think that the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Shaw: No, I shall not give way, because I seek to optimise the amount of time available for Back Benchers, who rightly wish to participate in the debate.
There is not a state of emergency over the mining dispute of a character as would require the adoption of an amendment such as the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to move. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, electricity supplies will continue well into 1985. CEGB coal stocks are at a high level and consumption is diminishing them by only 1·5 per cent. per week.
Industrial production has not been disrupted, and, despite the massive attempts made by the NUM, steel producers are still producing; indeed, they achieved a higher level of production in the last full week than at any time since the dispute began. Railways and other transport services are not at a standstill and active support from other unions seeking to escalate and widen the dispute — a characteristic of such disputes on past occasions—has not been forthcoming.
The present situation in the coal industry is that part of the National Union of Mineworkers is on strike but a significant part is not. The first and critical determining factor is that the union is widely divided on the issue and that more than 60,000 miners and other persons within the industry have elected to exercise their right to work. The Government have provided for the right to work to remain, despite the massive intimidation and pressure that have been brought to bear on individuals.
If the Labour party had seen fit to pay more attention to the fact that the NUM appears to be most unwilling to ballot its members on the issue, more credence might have been given to its attempt to move the Adjournment of the House and to seek its reassembly on 13 August. But there has been little attempt by the Opposition to come forward officially with proposals in relation to balloting the NUM work force. In that regard I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) because he has used his own contacts to provide prospects for discussions. I welcome his achievements but at the end of the day it must be said that after 35 hours of intensive negotiations there has not been a settlement. That is not because the National Coal Board has failed to offer attractive terms but because the NUM has made no attempt to accept that the gut issue in this dispute has been whether pits that offer no economic benefit to the industry should remain open.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney should remember that the National Coal Board has offered to re-examine its proposal of 6 March, based upon the 4 million tonnes contraction, and to review the objectives in individual areas. It has offered the continuing operation of the five collieries specifically referred to by the National

Union of Mineworkers, providing the union can agree guidelines for future decisions relating to the closure of collieries. The board has offered to establish those guidelines more clearly. It has also offered no compulsory redundancies. In addition, generous redundancy terms are available for those who leave the industry.
Frankly, it defies belief that the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney can dismiss completely all that the NCB has offered and say that no serious attempt to negotiate is being made. It is a massively serious attempt to resolve a major problem.

Mr. Tracey: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Shaw: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I seek to conclude very shortly.
There is an interesting ray of hope. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the costs within the National Coal Board's finances. The costs today are clearly shown in the accounts for 1983–84. Certainly some £200 million of that was attributed to the needless strike and the needless overtime ban which preceded it. But he will recognise that the loss before deficit grant of £875 million is broadly equivalent to 18 per cent. of the board's turnover. In the last four years the National Coal Board has lost nearly £2 billion. That is the underlying problem facing the industry.
The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that every possible mine should remain open, whether or not it makes a contribution beneficial to the industry, would undoubtedly increase the degree to which the coal board is basically insolvent and incapable of running its own affairs. It is the taxpayer who will ultimately be required to pick up the bill. In 1983–84 the bill to the taxpayer was a massive £1·3 billion, which was the equivalent of £130 per week for every employee in the coal industry. The Opposition wish to see such bills continue to escalate.

Mr. Skinner: Not as much as the farmers.

Mr. Shaw: Not as much as the farmers. I can tell the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that the rate of subsidies in the British agriculture industry for the 265,000 members who work within that industry works out at £65 per head. In the mining industry it is £130 per head. The sooner the—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman has had his say from his customary sedentary position. That is enough of the matter. If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues wish that state of affairs to continue the House can make a judgment. It can judge that he will indeed require the House to return so that the bankruptcy of the nation can be continued at a scale that suits him and his friends.
Finally, I refer to the Leader of the Opposition. He is absent from these discussions and I understand that. On 12 April the right hon. Gentleman asked the Prime Minister whether she welcomed the fact that a national ballot of the National Union of Mineworkers was now a clearer and closer prospect. The Leader of the Opposition has written to Labour Members to suggest that it is important to consult the membership, and how right he is. He laid down clear guidance to them, saying that those who oppose the proposal of direct membership voting believe that a great majority of members of the party cannot be trusted to make a judgment. He has won that argument. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that his letter in the Daily Telegraph could, with a change of only four words, if he saw fit to


write to the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, be paraphrased thus: "Do those who oppose the proposals of direct membership voting really think that a great majority of union members cannot be trusted to make a judgment? If they do, they had better say so. They had better admit it. They had better tell the people of the NUM that it is their membership that is wanted, not their opinion; that they are a respectful audience, not a union. Those who oppose the change have to explain how, in the name of democracy, they can deny the chance to vote to the people who make up the union."
That is the challenge that the Leader of the Opposition saw fit to make to his own party membership. I only wish that that challenge had been written to the National Union of Mineworkers, asking it to make the contribution that is required—that it should consult its membership on the terms offered so as finally to resolve the dispute.

Dr. David Owen: I wish to support the amendment. My only qualification is that I wonder whether we should be wise to commit ourselves to 13 August. We should ask the Leader of the House, before the House commits itself to going into recess for three months, to state that, if the miners' dispute is still continuing into the third week of August, the House shall be brought back at the start of September, before the party conference season, so that we may have at least a two-day debate on the issue.

Mr. Skinner: Will you turn up next time? You did not turn up for the last one.

Dr. Owen: The hon. Member for Ballsover —[Interruption.] Ballsover or Bolsover, it makes no difference to many hon. Members. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) cannot take it. He likes handing it out to everyone else—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Right hon. and hon. Members must resume their seats when I am on my feet. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will wait his turn and perhaps make his contribution in the ordinary course of debate.

Dr. Owen: The hon. for Bolsover has already spent five days out of the House. He will have to learn that his constant comments and interjections, usually from a seated position, are getting him nowhere. When he carries the support of the Nottinghamshire miners, and when his brother carries the support of the miners in his own pit, we may listen to him a little more. When I wish to go on a European election — I know that it is difficult for the hon. Member to understand—

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not want you to be misled. I wish to put on record that my brother in the Nottinghamshire coalfield has just been re-elected to the political committee by the group known as moderates.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member have a personal difference, I wish that they would settle it outside the Chamber.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is becoming increasingly difficult to hear the right hon. Gentleman who is trying to speak. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) constantly interrupts him. I submit to you that it is not correct to attribute the blame to the right hon. Gentleman. I ask you to order the hon. Member for Bolsover not to go on making remarks from a sedentary position.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that I had made it clear that I was being equally critical of both right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. Perhaps they will have listened to what has been said both from the Chair and from elsewhere in the House.

Dr. Owen: The debate must now focus on the central issues, the first of which is the miners' dispute. We wish to hear from the Leader of the House the assurance for which I have asked, that if the miners' dispute goes into the third week of August and looks as if it will go into September the House will be recalled so that we may debate it before the party conferences. That is what the House and the country expect, and I do not think that it is asking too much of the right hon. Gentleman.
The other reason why I think that it is prudent for the right hon. Gentleman to make that commitment is that the country's economic state is not such that the House can legitimately be expected not to sit for three months. I put to the right hon. Gentleman the same point that I put to the Prime Minister. A Government public expenditure review is currently taking place. It is not confined to public expenditure for 1985–86 but is considering public expenditure commitments for Government Departments for the current year, and the reason is not difficult to imagine. The fact is that on all the basic parameters on which the Government's economic policy is based they are way off target.
As regards the targets for the public sector borrowing requirement of £7·25 billion which the Government have accepted and have asked us all to worship at its altar, for the first quarter January to March it reached £4·7 billion, or two-thirds of the target. In the first quarter of 1983–84, it overshot by only £2·6 billion. It appears that the Government will have great difficulty in meeting their targets this year. Most people are forecasting an overshoot of £1 billion at least, and perhaps £2 billion. On the money supply figures, sterling M3, the main indicator, rose by 2 per cent. last month, making a rise of an annual rate of 15 per cent. since February, which is way above the Government's target of 6 to 10 per cent., and most City commentators are forecasting an overshoot of 10 to 12 per cent.
As regards local authority overspending—

Mr. Maude: rose—

Dr. Owen: No. We must keep speeches reasonably short.
Despite rate-capping procedures, overspending on local authorities' budgets is currently £850 million above the Government's target of £2·5 billion for 1984–85, while capital spending is overrunning by £350 million on an annual basis. That produces a total overshoot of £1·2 billion for 1984–85.
On public sector pay, for which the Government had a target figure of 3 per cent., the outcome following the


6 to 9 per cent. increases announced on 7 June by the five public sector review bodies is that public sector basic pay rates will rise by between 5·5 and 6 per cent.—nearly double the Government's target. That is an overshoot of between 5 and 6 per cent., which adds directly £400 million to the Government's bills.
That is nothing compared with what is in the pipeline. There is a dispute over Civil Service pay. The question of teachers' salaries has gone to arbitration after the deliberations of the Burnham committee, whose reference the Government opposed. If we add the figures—the local authority overspend of £1·2 billion, public sector pay £0·4 billion and the miners' dispute, which has been conservatively estimated at £1 billion—there is already an overshoot of £2·6 billion. That means that the contingency reserve has already been overtaken almost totally for that figure is £2·75 billion.
The Leader of the House, a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, is well aware that there are serious forecasts about the problems that face the Government. My objection is that it now looks as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not come to the House and make clear what he intends to do about public expenditure and announce cutbacks and be answerable for them, but will eke them out over August while we are on the beaches and we shall hear announcements about increased charges and more cutbacks. That is no way to treat the House or the country on a matter that is of fundamental importance.
I turn to the statement by the Minister who is responsible for the coal industry — and no one would deny that he has shown a great knowledge of that industry. What was missing from his statement was any sign of how the Government will approach the coming month. Will there be a fight between the NCB and the NUM, with no initiative and no new action? As long ago as April we put forward proposals for the NCB actively to involve itself in doing something about creating jobs in areas of high unemployment where there might be pit closures.
We suggested the creation of NCB Industry Ltd., but that proposal has not been acted upon despite constant demands for it. I wrote to Mr. MacGregor in May asking him to consider the suggestion. In June, I went to see him and again put to him the proposal for NCB Industry Ltd. I now hear that there is a possibility of some movement in that direction. Again, any progress should be reported to the House. I hope that we shall be told by the Leader of the House whether NCB Industry Ltd. is to be created. If it is, let us be told what capital is to be put into it and the extent of aid to be given in terms of management and lower interest rates to help create jobs, and of any special arrangements to make NCB Industry Ltd. the success that BSC Industry Ltd. is.
Secondly, what action is to be taken about the continued secondary picketing? To many of us it is unacceptable that the law should have been ignored for 20 weeks. The Government are losing sight of the much wider perspective, and secondary action is being legitimised. If no action is taken, in a few months' time it will not just be claimed that the law has proved to be inadequate and unacceptable, but it will be demonstrated that the Government have effectively accepted secondary action. That is not good enough. Pressure must be put on the NUM, and the House has the right to know what form it takes.

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose—

Dr. Owen: I shall not give way, as time is very short.

Mr. Skinner: Where are the Liberals?

Dr. Owen: The hon. Member for Bolsover still cannot keep quiet.
The third question which I put to the Leader of the House is what action will be taken about those who have had a charge made against them but have not come before the courts? That causes deep concern with regard to the wider issue of law and order. It is high time that matters were brought out into the open.
Labour Members have made it absolutely clear that they back the NUM completely. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover says, "We are backing the winners", but some of us want the dispute ended, although not at any price. We feel that it is time for pressure to be applied and for the momentum to be maintained. Illegal secondary action should not be tolerated, the intimidation that has gone on in mining communities should not be allowed to continue, and the house of a man who wants to work, and is free to do so, should not be picketed. Again., a policewoman should not be staying at the house of a family whose men are working. It is disgraceful and intolerable that there have been abuses of civil rights and liberties.

Mr. Skinner: On both sides.

Dr. Owen: Yes, there have been occasions when the police have exceeded their powers. Those incidents should be exposed with the same vigour as others have been; indeed, that has happened. But let no right hon. or hon. Member try to equate the actions of the police with those of the pickets. Day after day and week after week, the police have shown incredible control. Of course there have been isolated incidents in respect of which the officers involved should be disciplined; there is a procedure for investigation. If we do not stand up for civil liberties—

Mr. Ray Powell: The right hon. Gentleman has not seen what is happening.

Dr. Owen: I have seen it; I have visited Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire.
We have a duty to make our voices heard on these issues. All I ask of the Leader of the House is that he gives some indication of the Government's intentions. If we go through August with no action being taken, it will not be long before we come to winter, when the demands on energy will increase. We are told that it is not possible to import coal but we are entitled to hear why it is not possible.
It is perfectly legitimate for the House to know how the Government intend to handle some of the questions which I ask calmly and carefully. I believe that it is necessary for us to put together a package of measures which will maintain the law in all its aspects and does not accept that we will effectively be starved into submission through a lack of coal in the winter months, which is the tactic of the NUM. As long as it is made clear to the people that the Government do not intend to do that or to apply the law of this country, both criminal and civil, equally and impartially, the NUM will carry a great deal more conviction.
The fact is that the Government lost the initiative in this strike about six to eight weeks ago. They have probably regained it in the past week or so, and that is to be welcomed. The chairman of the NCB went as far as most


people would think was reasonable—some would say he went further — to find a form of words which was acceptable. However, we are now deadlocked, so it is reasonable for the House to be told how the Government intend to handle the problem. With the background of economic statistics and loss of target figures that the Government now face, a much wider audience than that in the United Kingdom wants to know how the miners' dispute will be handled, and the House, too, is entitled to know that.
It is not my job to give a definition of an uneconomic pit; that is a matter for negotiation between the NCB and the NUM. I merely say that I would not accept it as possible that the NUM should say that it will never consider the closure of any pit on economic grounds. That appears to be the position adopted by Mr. Scargill. It is Mr. Scargill who has divided the union. It is Mr. Scargill who has ensured that the members of a union which was one of the most united of all trade unions find themselves so severely split. It is Mr. Scargill who has made this a political strike. It is Mr. Scargill who has not been prepared to make any concession or compromise. It is time that an alternative voice was heard loud and clear saying that Mr. Scargill's tactics of intimidation, violence, bullying and distortion are intolerable to the people of this country.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not intolerable that, when the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was making his speech, a speech in parallel was being made from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Is not that a total abuse of the traditions of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Sedentary interruptions are to be deprecated from whichever part of the House they come. I agree with the hon. Member that those from below the Gangway were intolerable. However, I believe that the whole House will realise that we are discussing a serious and highly emotional issue, so it would be totally unreasonable to expect the House to behave as though we were discussing a minor matter.

Mr. Hickmet: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many hon. Members wish to hear what the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport, (Dr. Owen) has to say but he is a most difficult person to hear, precisely because of the sedentary interventions made from below the Gangway on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No doubt the House will take account of what has been said, but points of order will only delay the opportunities for hon. Members to take part in the debate.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said that he would support the amendment. Therefore, he wants the House to sit in the middle of August, which is perfectly fair. However, later in his speech the right hon. Gentleman warned the Government that statements must not be made by Ministers during August when he would be on a beach somewhere. I cannot help feeling that were my right hon. Friend to accept the amendment a lot of right

hon. and hon. Opposition Members would be in a state of shock because they would have to cancel the holidays they have already planned.
I wish to raise three issues with my hon. Friend and hope that he will give the House a statement before we rise for the summer recess. The first issue was mentioned during business questions by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) and concerns the Civil Aviation Authority's report on airline competition policy. We are very worried in the north-west of England because there is an international airport at Manchester and we are concerned about its future. Every hon. Member with constituencies in the north-west would say that he is proud of that airport's achievements. If the CAA report is implemented it could be a catastrophe for Manchester international airport. To suggest that British Airways should lose all its European services from Manchester, leaving it with domestic services only and the flight that will operate from April three times a week to New York, could lead to British Airways withdrawing completely from Manchester airport and a consequent loss of jobs. We are not being offered competition but substitution.
Therefore, a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should be made before the House rises for the summer recess. If he cannot make a statement by then, he should wait until we return in the autumn. It would be unforgivable if a statement were made on such an important issue while the House was in recess when we had not the opportunity to question my right hon. Friend on a matter of vital importance to the north-west.
The inquiry into the third London airport was completed a year ago. The decision taken will be of vital importance to the north-west too. It is ironic that the people in Essex do not want the third London airport at Stansted and the people in greater Manchester would welcome an expansion of Manchester airport. That would mean the provision of more jobs. Rumours are circulating that the inspector is in favour of Stansted—I hope that they are only rumours. I should like an undertaking before we rise for the summer recess that when that report is published a debate will take place in the House before a decision is reached. That would give us a chance to make our case before a decision is taken.
It seems daft that there is any argument about the issue. If the decision is taken in favour of Stansted, the people in that area will be up in arms, as will those in greater Manchester. If Stansted gets the thumbs down, those in that area and in greater Manchester will be delighted.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House should understand that 40 per cent. of United Kingdom international passengers originate outside the south-east of England. They are entitled to some consideration, so I hope that we shall be told before the House rises that a debate will be held before a final decision is reached.
I know that my right hon. Friend would be disappointed if I took part in this debate without mentioning my hobbyhorse—the reform of the rating system. A year ago, I warned my right hon. Friend when I said:
I have raised this issue often before. I make no apology for raising it again today and I shall go on raising it until something is done to find a fairer system, and if that does not put the fear of God into my right hon. Friend I do not know what will."—[Official Report, 25 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 811.]


My right hon. Friend must be fearless because he has not taken a blind bit of notice and we are left with the same iniquitous rating system. I admit that the Government have tried to help the hard-pressed ratepayers with a measure called rate capping and the proposed abolition of the metropolitan counties. I am astonished that the Government have taken so much abuse from the Opposition parties when they planned to abolish the same councils. I remind my right hon. Friend of those parties' manifestos. The Labour party manifesto states:
Unitary district authorities, in England and Wales, could be responsible for all the functions in this area that they could sensibly undertake.
If there are unitary authorities, the metropolitan counties must automatically go.
The alliance went further. Its manifesto states:
It would inevitably involve the eventual abolition of the Metropolitan Counties, and the GLC".
I remind my right hon. Friend, too, that some weeks ago there was an interesting discussion on Sir Robin Day's programme, "Question Time". Ms. Polly Toynbee, who stood as the SDP/Liberal alliance candidate for Lewisham, East and fortunately was not elected, had a field day attacking the Government for their plans to abolish the metropolitan counties. When she was reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) that she had fought on exactly that programme, she denied it. The poor, bemused lady did not even know what policy she had been fighting on at the last general election.

Mr. Skinner: It is called hypocrisy.

Mr. Montgommery: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that my right hon. Friend should point out that what we are seeking to do was being sought by other parties at the last election.
We are still left with the problem of finding a fairer system of raising local authority finance. No one can dispute that the present system is manifestly unfair, because no account is taken of a person's ability to pay. Everyone knows cases of two identical adjacent houses where in one there is an elderly widow and, in the other, three or four wage earners, with both houses paying the same rates bill. I cannot see any justice in that. The unfairness is compounded by the system of water rates, which are based on a hypothetical rental value rather than on consumption. I have never had a satisfactory answer from anyone as to why there are property rate rebates but no water rate rebates. I mention that because I believe that water rates are another burden that bears heavily on the poor and elderly.
We are always being reminded that the Conservative party is pledged to get rid of the rating system. There was a pledge in the October 1974 manifesto, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was shadow Environment Secretary. The 1979 manifesto gave rating reform a much lower priority because the Conservative party's view at that time was that direct taxation had increased so drastically that a reduction in direct taxation must take precedence.
There are basically three options for changing the rating system. There is, first, the sales tax, which seems to work well in the United States. The United States is a very large country and, in a smaller country such as ours, if there were a substantial variation in shopping patterns it could be very difficult for traders. There is local income tax, which is fairer than the present system because it takes into

account a person's ability to pay. The argument was always used that the present system was easy to administer and easy to collect and that if there were a local income tax the administrative cost of collection could be expensive. I should have thought that with the new technology and computers that argument could now be destroyed.
The third alternative is a poll tax, which would spread the burden evenly on everyone on the electoral register. It would be easy and inexpensive to collect. The Green Paper forecast that a £30 poll tax would yield £1,200 million annual revenue. I am beginning to wonder whether a mixture of a poll tax and a much reduced domestic rate is the answer to the ratepayers' problem. If one looks at the back of a rate demand, one will find that education is far and away the biggest spender. Teachers' salaries take the highest percentage of the education budget. I am convinced that teachers do not want to be civil servants. They want to keep the local connection and to be employed by their local education authority. Therefore, those local education authorities must have some financial responsibility. Perhaps we could have a scheme whereby teachers' basic salaries are paid by central Government and any additional payments are shared between central Government and the local education authorities. If that scheme were adopted it would lift an enormous burden from the shoulders of ratepayers. I admit that it would add to the burden of the direct taxpayer. It must not be taken as a signal to spendthrift councils that when the burden for the ratepayer has been reduced they can press on with their wild, extravagant schemes so that the ratepayer will be back to square one.
I have tried to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I realise the enormous demand that there is to speak in the debate. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will note the points that I have made and that before the House rises I can have some assurances on the three points that I have raised.

Mr. Jack Dormand: I shall be very brief in developing two points which I believe to be crucial in the mining dispute and which the Government have completely failed to comprehend. The first is the utter determination of the miners and their families to stay out. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) spent so much time and emphasised that so strongly when he made the initial contribution from the Opposition at the Dispatch Box. There was never any doubt about the miners' resolution from the first day of the strike, but I tell the Government that their determination grows stronger every day.

Mr. Maude: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dormand: I always do, but on this occasion I am making a five-minute speech and, in those circumstances, I think that I am justified in not accepting interventions.
If the Government are counting on a break in the miners' resolve, they are making a fundamental error that will have far-reaching effects not only on the coal industry but on the country as a whole—and I refer to social as well as to economic effects. I cannot emphasise too strongly to the Minister and the Government that the reality in the pit villages bears no resemblance whatever


to their view of the present situation. I could give many examples, but one from my own area—the north-east—will suffice. Two weeks ago, the northern-eastern area of the National Coal Board sent out personal invitations, every one individually signed by each colliery manager, asking the men to return to work, saying that 200 buses would be laid on to take them to the pits and that anyone restarting work would qualify for pay during the annual July holiday period. Not a single member of the north-east's 22,000 work force attempted to return to work—and that after 18 weeks of strike and all the hardship entailed.
The Government must recognise that determination. They must realise the implications of their mistaken view of the feelings in the mining communities. There is a saying that I hear every weekend when I go home to my mining constituency. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides have heard the miners say, "We are now through the pain barrier. After 19 weeks of this, we can carry on indefinitely", and intend to.
The Government have the responsibility for the pits. We hear almost every day about the deterioration of coal faces and expensive pit machinery. Do the Government wash their hands of all that? If so, it is a criminal abdication of their responsibility for a great industry. The Government had better remove from their balance sheet, if I can so describe it, from their plans, the possibility of breaking the miners' spirit and determination, because it will not happen.
The Government's second major error is one made on their own chosen ground, namely, the economics of the coal industry. From the beginning, the Government have taken a short-term myopic view of the industry. They have not taken into consideration the full financial implications of pit closures — social security payments, redundancy payments, about which the Government are always boasting, the often underrated costs of demolition, raising machinery, transfering machinery, and so on. I can give many other instances.
Some months ago, the National Union of Mineworkers produced a paper arguing that closing a pit produced a net loss to the Exchequer. I do not expect this Government to pay too much attention to an NUM document, but it is significant that they have never attempted to refute that NUM case. I go further. I believe that there is now sufficient evidence to suggest that a net loss does result from closures, and the strike has encouraged a number of investigations into that aspect. For example, several respected academics have produced reports and papers, and if the Government have a genuine desire to bring the dispute to an end, they should establish their own inquiry into the financial situation with an instruction to report within a short period. Sufficient work has been done to ensure that a quick report could be produced.
Any normal, humane Government would realise, of course, that a narrow financial investigation such as I propose is not sufficient. No civilised society should contemplate deliberately throwing a man on the unemployment scrap-heap — because that is what it means—with no alternative work available. Let me give an example from my constituency, where the only major job-finding agency is the new town development corporation. It is the only organisation or institution that is bringing jobs to my area. Nevertheless, the Government

propose to abolish it next year, at the same time as proposing to close pits. That is the kind of lunacy that faces us. Shops have already closed in my area, and even professional people — lawyers, doctors, dentists — are feeling the draught. These and other developments are part of the economic decline that results directly from pit closures.
I hope the Minister will agree that, in this brief contribution, I have tried to be constructive. I am pleased to have his assent to that.
Many other aspects of the dispute cry out for comment, but if the Government do not recognise the importance of the two issues that I have raised I fear that we shall not make much progress. They are vital to a sector of society which, for decades, has contributed to the nation's well-being. Coal mining, in spite of all the improvements that have been made, remains a dirty, disagreeable and dangerous job. I go down the pits regularly, so I know. Nevertheless, miners and their families accept it, provided they feel that they have the security that such an occupation deserves.
The Government have shirked their responsibility in this dispute, but I hope that the arguments from this side of the House — except, if I may say so, those of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) —will lead them to a fundamental change of policy. Their intervention is both necessary and urgent.

Mr. James Kilfedder: A simple and cogent reason why the House should not adjourn on Wednesday 1 August, which has not been mentioned so far, is the grim situation in Northern Ireland. Unless there is an emergency recall of Parliament, the House will not meet again until 22 October. During the long summer recess, when the people of England, Scotland and Wales will enjoy a relatively peaceful and contented time, the people of Ulster will continue to live under the frightful shadow of the terrorist thug and murderer.
In moving the amendment, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) gave a number of reasons why the House should not adjourn. He spoke of a summer of discontent. I wish indeed that the only problem facing Northern Ireland was that of the mining industry that is now facing this country. I have the greatest sympathy with that problem, because I regret to see miner confronting miner and miner confronting the police, but I ask my parliamentary colleagues to ponder the plight of the decent, law-abiding people of Northern Ireland, who have been subjected to 15 years of horror and bloodshed by a vile group of evil beings. These obscene thugs show no compassion or mercy to their innocent or helpless victims, but when they are arrested they demand —loudly and clearly, as always—the full protection of the British legal system, which they are intent on destroying. When they are arrested, these terrorist thugs protest vehemently about any alleged rough handling on arrest or in detention.
It is sad that those criminals will continue to mutilate, murder and commit appalling atrocities during the three months of the summer recess. Sadder still is the fact that the police, the Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment —which have shown great courage and dedication, and deserve the thanks of the entire nation — do not yet receive full, unequivocal support from everyone in the Province, especially not from all the clergy, even though


all are prepared to condemn terrorists whenever a singularly violent and shocking crime is committed. There is little use in expressing sympathy to the bereaved or attending victims' funerals unless all the clergy and elected representatives who reject violence are prepared to take an implacable and unequivocal stand against terrorists.
Terrorists are the enemies of all decent people in Northern Ireland. They stop the political progress and peace which would bring prosperity and create a future for the young who live against the background of such a nightmare. The terrorists are like the Mafia of old, who obtained a rich and easy living by terrorising everyone and killing without compunction.
As everyone in the House knows, or should know, Northern Ireland is one of the finest places in the world. Its success in the past depended on its diversity. I believe that the future success of the Province depends on the diversity of its people. Protestant and Roman Catholic can each act as a catalyst and help each other to make a worthwhile future for their children. No one will have a future if terrorists are allowed to keep their boot on the neck of those living in the Province.
There could yet be a magnificent flowering of culture and learning in the best tradition of Samuel Beckett, Oscar Wilde, Dean Swift, Goldsmith and other great figures—the hosts of the past who brought great credit to the Province and to the rest of Ireland. All the ingenuity possessed by the people of Northern Ireland could recreate the spirit that would make Ulster peaceful and prosperous once again.
That is why the Northern Ireland Assembly—which has just completed its second year of existence, despite political predictions that it would not last two days or two weeks — has such an important role to play in the Province's future. If the elected representatives of different political and religious hues get together in the Assembly to exchange ideas and humour, confidence can be restored in the Province. With the creation of confidence, all things are possible.
I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has held that office for nearly three years. As I have said before, he is a man of integrity; he is caring and compassionate and epitomises what is best in English political life. The good wishes of the Ulster people will go with him and his wife in whatever career he may follow.
Finally, before the debate returns to the mining industry and miners' representatives recreate an explosive situation in the Chamber, I close with a personal comment. Before the House resumes on 22 October I shall have attained the 20th anniversary of my first election to Parliament.
I am proud to have had the opportunity of representing the people of Northern Ireland. I wish to pay a tribute to the Ulster people who, despite the defamation that has been spread about them by Republican terrorists, have great qualities and traits. They have great heart, charity, and humour and they are to be admired. I am proud to have represented them in the House over a considerable period. I pray to God that over the summer months nothing will happen in the Province that will create bloodshed. I hope that before long the people of Northern Ireland will be able to enjoy once again the peace to which they are entitled.

Mr. Allen McKay: As the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) suggests, I will return to one of the most important aspects

of the debate. I notice that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has left the Chamber. Not one representative of the alliance party remains to say why we should not adjourn.
We have heard many comments on the mining dispute over the past few weeks and one of the most inflammatory was that made by the Prime Minister and some of her colleagues at the weekend. They said that the leader of the mineworkers was like Galtieri and that the miners were like the enemy within. I remind the House that it was the sons and brothers of "the enemy within" who fought in the Prime Minister's Falklands war, and we should never forget that. My constituents were insulted by the remarks, and the Prime Minister and her Ministers owe my constituents an apology.
The first mistake was the appointment of Ian MacGregor. When he was appointed after his butchery of the steelworkers, the miners knew what to expect. It was then that they decided that the battlelines were drawn. It was the closure of Cortonwood that set it off, but I shall not go through that again. When people ask about the closure of Cortonwood, I always say to them that one never throws a match into a gas-filled room. That is what the Government did by allowing Cortonwood to close.
During the many years that I worked for the board, I closed collieries. There was no problem. The way to do it is to follow the agreed procedures. There is a review procedure. I do not know one person at Cortonwood who did not expect the pits to last for more than two years. It would not last for more than five or seven years, as was suggested. The men knew that the pit would be in jeopardy after two years. However, the closure was premature, unnecessary, unprecedented and caused the problems.
It is said that people are screaming out for a ballot. However, Yorkshire had a ballot in 1981 and 84 per cent. of Yorkshire miners said that if there were closures on economic grounds industrial action would be taken. The miners' conference, mandated by its members, said exactly the same thing—that there would be a strike if there were economic closures. The evidence was there. Cortonwood was an explosive situation and its closure was all that was needed to set off the dispute. Therefore, there was a strike in Yorkshire, agreed to by ballot, and the pickets from Yorkshire and elsewhere went to bring their colleagues out with them.
We should consider what is meant by a promise of a job for everyone and why workers in my area regard that with suspicion. My constituents went from Elsecar to Cortonwood because there was no other place to go and then Cortonwood closed. They did not want to go to Cortonwood in the first place but had to because there was no alternative. Electricians, fitters and some of the men were found jobs, not as underground electricians or mechanics, but as surface electricians and mechanics because no other jobs were available. Some people had to go in to the workshops. They did not want to go to those jobs some 20 miles away, but nothing else was available.
Therefore, when the Secretary of State and the Minister say that there is a job for everyone, we must ask "Where, how far and for how long?" In happier times I brought miners down from Scotland and Durham to Yorkshire but the heartbreak of having to leave home has to be believed.
How do the Government expect a man to leave home when his children are taking O and A-levels? How can they expect 20,000 people to move? That is what is asked when we are told that there are 20,000 jobs available


elsewhere. What arrangements will be made for housing and schools? That is not an easy task—it is a planned task over many years. Those are the things that the Government and the board have failed to consult the men about. One cannot say "I will close that pit" and expect everything to work out. That was tried in the 1960s when Schumacher decided that he would put collieries into three categories. That is what the Government and the board are trying to do now, to put collieries into categories A, B and C—the ones that make a profit, those on the border line and those that are unprofitable. Therefore, the C pits are closed. However, what was forgotten in those days, and what is forgotten now, is that a man can be asked to move and he can say, "I ain't going." What happened was that the B pits became unprofitable because the C pits were closed and the men did not move. Therefore, we run in a spiral. It is wrong to deal with the problem in the coal fields in such a way.
Mr. MacGregor brought an American system into English industrial relations and made a hash of it. It did not work. As has been said about the strike, there is no going back. That is sad and a bad reflection. The men and women in my area have lost everything except their pride, dignity and integrity. There is no going back and the Government and the board should realise that fact. All that is left to these people is their pride, dignity and integrity. Everything else has been taken from them — cars, videos, and so on—and they are in debt. However, they will be fed because those who are in work will feed them. Schools will feed the children and they will have a roof over their heads. People in the area will see to that. There will be no one starving and there will be no going back.
However, an honourable settlement can be achieved, if not easily, and the House should not adjourn until the miners strike is settled and the miners in the coalfields are back at work, where they should be.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: I want to concentrate on House of Commons matters because by tradition this debate has never before been hijacked by the Opposition Front Bench. I believe that that is wholly wrong. I will make passing reference to the speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). He revelled in Britain's economic problems. His speeches have become increasingly waspish, which is a clear indication of his reselection problems. I can only suggest that his priorities are wholly wrong and that when he ceased to be a Minister he should have given up reading his speech. That is what he did this afternoon.
Although the debate may have moments of emotion, that does not excuse the behaviour we experienced while the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was speaking. The rules of the House should be observed whether or not the debate is emotional. If we allow that tradition to go, we allow the procedures of the House to degenerate into what goes on behind the Iron Curtain. I would defend the right of the right hon. Gentleman to make his speeches, and he should be heard in the same silence as anyone else in the House. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr.

Skinner) mentioned earlier the absence of the right hon. Member for Devonport. His absence is preferable to the presence of the hon. Member for Bolsover.
The House of Commons eighth report from the Committee of Public Accounts was published on 12 December 1983. It referred to the National Audit Office, and the Exchequer and the Audit Department. On page viii, referring to the new headquarters for the C & AG and the National Audit Office, it states:
We recommend that authority to proceed be granted by the Public Accounts Commission at the earliest possible date. We trust that every effort will be made by the NAO to keep the cost of moving to a new building as low as possible.
When I read that, I cast around for a way of questioning on this matter. After consultation through the usual channels, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was good enough to arrange a five-minute slot every few weeks for the hon. Member who answers for the Public Accounts Commission. So far, so good. Therefore, on 22 May I was able to ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), as Chairman of the PAC, for the detailed reasons why it is not intended to locate the headquarters of the National Audit Office outside London. I had a long, helpful reply from him. As former Ministers, we both know that certain answers are drafted so as not to give the maximum amount of information. As a Minister one is taught to give only bare information in order to answer the question. I agree with that. It is good, as it teaches people to ask questions properly.
However, then I thought that it would be useful to hold an Adjournment debate on the National Audit Office. For example, I wanted to ask why it had to be looking for accommodation in central London, which is very expensive, when it could have gone to the London Docklands area which is being developed and which has substantially cheaper accommodation. I was not able to do that because I was informed by the Principal Clerk in the Table Office, when I applied for a balloted Adjournment, that in view of the fact that
the present rule regarding Ministerial responsibility for Adjournment debates has been adhered to ever since the war, the Clerk of the House has concluded that we would have to advise the Speaker that he should not, on his own authority, change the rulings of the House so as to permit an Adjournment debate on a subject for which a Minister has no responsibility, or a debate to be answered by a Member other than a Minister.
We are able to question the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission at Question Time, but we cannot question him in an Adjournment debate. I am informed that those responsible for the National Audit Office have no Minister responsible to them in such a way that it is possible to question a Minister on the Floor of the House in an Adjournment debate on this subject.
That is an important issue. The new National Audit Office is producing some useful and informative reports. It is true that one can question the departmental Minister on his particular subject, but one cannot question the philosophy behind that body or the rulings and decisions of the Commission.
I ask my right hon. Friend a very simple question. He knows me of old; I do not ask him difficult questions. Before the House rises for the summer recess—I trust that he will not advise the House to accept the amendment —will he make it possible for an Adjournment debate to be held on the subject without changing the rules? If not, then I ask him to arrange for the matter to be considered by the Procedure Committee at a very early date, preferably at its first sitting after October 22.
Finally, can my right hon. Friend tell us before the House rises that, in the light of the nonsensical farce which has resulted from the general election in the State of Israel, the Government will in no circumstances tolerate any form of proportional representation?

Mr. Ray Powell: I am pleased to participate in the debate, because, like my right hon. Friend who moved the amendment, I believe that the House should not adjourn until it has seriously considered the miners' strike.
I listened attentively to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. Some of his statements rather amazed me. From all the rhetoric to which we have listened over the past 20 weeks, it appears that the Government do not get the message. I shall repeat the messages that have been delivered in the House in the past 20 weeks and particularly the past 10 weeks: in no way will the Government win this issue. The miners, their wives and families are now more determined than ever that they will win.

Mr. Marlow: They want to get back to work.

Mr. Powell: If the hon. Gentleman shuts up, listens and learns something, he may try to put pressure on his own party to settle a dispute that needs to be considered very seriously, in his own interests in particular, because he probably has shares stocked up somewhere bringing in capital. I shall come to that in a minute, because the issue is affecting not only the miners, their wives and families, whose televisions, cars and holidays have gone, which they are quite prepared to suffer.
We have heard over the weeks about the number of collieries that were closed under the last Labour Government and under Labour Governments before that. There are not many collieries left now because of those closures. But in Ogmore since the Tory Government took office the Caerau colliery was closed—in 1979—and in 1981 the Coegnant colliery was closed. The miners had to find jobs elsewhere. There were no redundancy agreements. They had to move out of their areas to find jobs five, 10 and 15 miles away.
On January 7 this year, without the normal negotiations with the NCB and the NUM in south Wales, the Wyndham Western colliery, the last colliery in the Ogmore valley, was closed, with a loss of 550 jobs. The last colliery in the Llynfi valley, which employs 824 miners and for us is at the top of the hit list, will be closed unless the miners win the battle. To the Llynfi valley and to Maesteg it will mean that male unemployment in that area which is now 24 per cent. will escalate to 45 per cent., with no chance of other jobs in the Ogmore area. That is what the fight is all about.
There is an abundance of coal in the Llynfi and Ogmore valleys. There is now talk of sinking a new pit in Black Mill which is only three miles from the colliery which was closed on January 7.
Since I was elected in 1979, I have constantly advocated a new mine at Margam, and that was being sympathetically considered until the Government appointed Ian MacGregor—that geriatric with one foot in the crematorium—

Mr. Marlow: He has done very well for a geriatric.

Mr. Powell: We do not think that he is doing very well. He was responsible for the fact that in my constituency the

number of unemployed steelworkers escalated from 1,000 to 7,000 during the two years that he was chairman of the British Steel Corporation.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) should drive, walk or catch a train to some of the areas where pickets are on duty and witness, as I have witnessed, some of the police brutality—

Mr. Hickmet: rose—

Mr. Powell: Has the hon. Gentleman been to those areas?

Mr. Hickmet: My constituency has been on the receiving end of considerable violence from pickets, both at Orgreave and in Scunthorpe itself. Were it not for the actions of the police, the steel works would have been in great difficulty, if not closed. The consequences of that for a town of 66,000 people would be far more horrendous than anything of which the hon. Gentleman is speaking.

Mr. Powell: I shall not take long to reply to those remarks, other than to suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads last week's publication of Police, which is issued to every hon. Member, takes note of what it said about Orgreave and studies the photographs that it has published. He should read other documents about Orgreave, which show how brutally the police have behaved.
I have visited the steel works in Margam and Llanwern. I saw lorry loads of coking coal and iron ore being transported from one place to another, sometimes using 150 lorries at a time. The miners tried to stop the lorries, and I saw the police deliberately provoking them to take action to keep the lorries out of the works. I have seen lorries run over people—

Mr. Hickmet: Rubbish.

Mr. Powell: It is not rubbish. I have witnessed all that. If Conservative Members want to speak with authority, they should witness it for themselves.
Today's edition of The Standard announced National Coal Board losses of £875 million for last year—£390 million more than in 1982–83. That is undoubtedly due to the industrial dispute. Why are not the Government taking that fact into consideration? An early-day motion was tabled this week signed by 50 Opposition Members, and stating that the cost of the dispute was £10 billion. Yet it was tabled not by Opposition Members, but by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet), who is chairman of the all-party minerals group. If the dispute is costing the nation £10 billion, surely the Government should take action. We want to know why they are not seriously considering taking action to resolve the dispute.
When Ian MacGregor was appointed chairman of the NCB, a number of Opposition Members objected strongly. Mr. MacGregor has been in office for less than 12 months but has created more disruption in the industry than anyone anticipated, although some Opposition Members warned the Government of the dangers of a dispute such as this, which I believe the Government have deliberately provoked. I will not develop that because a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak in the debate.

Mr. Don Dixon: The alliance Bench is empty.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for making that point. Members of the alliance are called more frequently to speak than are some of the 206 Labour


Members. The right hon. Member for Devonport addressed the House and then made a quick exit. You should not do that in this House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to reflect adversely on the Chair.

Mr. Powell: I apologise for using the word "you," Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not dream of criticising the Chair. After all, I am hoping to be called to speak in future debates. I was simply pointing out that alliance Members tend to turn up, make a contribution and, within no time, depart.
It is a disgrace that the right hon. Member for Devonport is no longer in his place. I wanted to comment on his remarks about the actions of the Government and the NCB in trying to whip up propaganda to get some of the striking miners to return to work. Silver Birch, who is said to be visiting certain areas, is a mythical figure; or, if he exists, I suggest that he has contracted Dutch elm disease. He will not persuade miners in Wales to return to work.
Since 1979, we in Wales have endured not only mass de-manning in the steel industry, but today we have heard about a shortage of water. Hon. Members have said that they never imagined that Wales would be short of water. That shortage has come about because of the planning, or lack of it, by the Government. We have even had earthquakes since the Conservatives came to power. It is a wonder that they have not tried to blame Arthur Scargill for those.
I assure the Government that 80 per cent. of the miners who are on strike support Mr. Scargill. He has the support of Opposition Members because his fight is not for money but for jobs, and the miners know that if the pits close there will be no jobs for them. I appeal to the Government not to rise for the summer until the dispute is settled.
Yesterday afternoon in Committee Room 9, NUM-sponsored hon. Members and others addressed Civil Service staff members of the House. At the conclusion of the meeting the staff made a donation of £30 to the strikers' fund and held a raffle in support of the miners. It is significant, therefore, that the staff of Parliament join Opposition Members in demanding a settlement of the dispute and in appealing for support for those who are on strike fighting for their jobs.

Mr. Tim Yeo: I am sorry that the debate was introduced with a 17-minute reselection speech by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). As he took that much time, it was a pity that he did not mention Labour's discovery yesterday of democracy, because if that discovery were passed on to the NUM the strike would be over before the date on which it is suggested that we should reassemble.
I agreed with part of the speech of right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who has left the Chamber. No doubt he has gone to the beaches to which he referred. However, it was ridiculous that the right hon. Gentleman should suggest that the House would need to be recalled in September. What would there be for us to debate, except a compromise or some fudging?
The right hon. Gentleman made unfounded comments about spending cuts and suggested that they will be

introduced in a hidden way during August. If he wishes to battle against those cuts, I suggest that he fights that battle on the beaches.
I regret that the first 50 minutes of the debate, which is usually allocated mainly to Back Benchers, was taken up by party spokesmen.
I wish to discuss the provision of neonatal intensive care, a subject which is of greater long-term interest than the coal strike, which will no doubt be settled shortly. The Select Committee on Social Services produced an excellent report last month on the general issue of perinatal and neonatal mortality. The report correctly identified the progress made in recent years. There has been a sharp fall in the perinatal mortality rate over the past five years from 15·5 per thousand births to 11·3. There has been a similar fall in the neonatal mortality rate.
The Select Committee, when it reported on the subject in 1980, and the Spastics Society pointed out that there was scope for a reduction of up to 5,000 a year in the number of baby deaths. The Government dismissed that suggestion as unrealistic, yet, only four years later, we are halfway to achieving that target, with a reduction of about 2,500 baby deaths. I hope that, as the Select Committee and the Spastics Society were proved right on that occasion and that the Government were proved wrong, Ministers will pay more attention to the recommendations in the Select Committee's latest report on the subject.
Our perinatal mortality rate is still higher than that in many countries, and there are still wide regional variations within Britain and wide divergencies between the perinatal mortality rate in different social classes. It is particularly worrying that that divergence is showing signs of increasing.
After more than 35 years of the NHS, a mother's risk of having a severely handicapped baby still depends partly on where she lives. The risk is much higher for families in social classes four and five and for mothers born in Pakistan.
If we are to redress the imbalance in the NHS between prevention and reactive and curative treatment, what better starting point could there be than the prevention of baby deaths and handicaps? For those who prefer not to be swayed by emotional considerations, there are powerful financial arguments. The cost of caring for a severely handicapped person is borne not by that person's family, but largely by central and local Government expenditure.
The success of neonatal intensive care in reducing the incidence of handicap has resulted in a great increase in the demand for resources and skills that remain limited.
There has been controversy about whether neonatal intensive care results in the survival of a larger number of handicapped babies. On this issue, I can do no better than quote the views of Professor Osmund Reynolds of University College hospital, one of the country's leading authorities. He has said that:
The development of a proper national structure for neonatal intensive care must not be impeded by unwarranted concern about the possibility of handicap in survivors. A much more likely cause of handicap is inadequate provision of facilities for intensive care, because the partial treatment of vulnerable infants may allow avoidable damage to occur.
In the light of those views, I believe that a number of the recommendations of the Social Services Select Committee, which reflect the views expressed at a conference organised by the Spastics Society last September, are worthy of serious consideration. In the interests of brevity, I will not enumerate them now.
Closely related to the whole issue of neonatal intensive care is the lack of any minimum standards for obstetric and neonatal care in this country. In October 1981, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan) promised that the Government would ask the maternity services advisory committee, which was then being set up, to consider this question. In January 1983 my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) announced, through a parliamentary answer, that the advisory committee had recommended that discussion of minimum standards be absorbed into its second report on intrapartum care. However, when the report was published a year later, though excellent in many respects, it lacked any reference to the maintenance of minimum standards, with the aid of checklists, for staffing and equipment levels, as the Government and the advisory committee had originally promised. We should be given an explanation of that omission.

Mr. Alfred Morris: If the hon. Gentleman is calling on the Government to make a statement on neonatal care before the House rises, is he prepared also to call on them to reconsider their attitude to the Black report? The hon. Gentleman has made a strong case for the reconsideration by Ministers of their attitude to that report.

Mr. Yeo: I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman says about the need to reconsider the conclusions of the Black report. That is an increasingly urgent issue. However, I shall not suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should make time available for a Government statement on the matter in the next four or five days. I could not, in all honesty, expect such a request to be granted. We should devote some time to the issue as early as possible in the autumn, because it is of considerable national importance.
I welcome the Government's initiatives and the considerable progress that has been made since the publication in 1980 of the original Social Services Select Committee report. The perinatal mortality rate has fallen and is continuing to fall. The work of the maternity services advisory committee has been significant in changing attitudes within the maternity services. However, I urge the Government to pay more attention to this issue. I believe that neonatal intensive care is a fruitful area for further Government action, although I do not hold this view so strongly that I believe that the House should do other than adjourn on 1 August and return on 22 October.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I rise to support the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I represent a mining constituency, and at present all the communities in my constituency are suffering great hardship because of the need to fight against job losses in the area. The House ought to recognise that miners in the Yorkshire coalfield are on strike because we foresee that a further rundown in the British coalmining industry will mean even higher unemployment and even greater poverty. Unemployment levels in my constituency are far above the national average, some being twice that level. If one discounts the youth training scheme — which, in my view, is a fraudulent scheme—about 70 per cent. of people under the age of 20 in my constituency are unemployed. Any

further job losses in collieries in my area will mean greater suffering. The House and the country should realise that the strike is about job losses, not individuals or politics. My constituents have to stave off unemployment and poverty.
I have a special problem in my constituency—the Orgreave coking works. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members have seen it in the past few months. Today, coal is being taken into Orgreave. Presumably it will be coked and brought out again. I understand that some of the coal comes from Poland. I take great exception to that. Opposition Members have made representations to the Polish embassy to stop the coal coming in. I hope that those representations are effective. Orgreave has been supplied with coal from my constituency since it was built. I understand that the coal has been sweetened occasionally by coal from Staffordshire. Since the strike began, coal has been supplied to Orgreave to keep it going and many of my constituents in work.
There have recently been terrible scenes outside the coke works. I hope to get down to the reasons for the disgraceful action of the police, and sometimes pickets, outside that plant. On 10 April 1984, a meeting was convened at the British Steel Corporation plant at Scunthorpe. Those who attended included the head of marketing in the Yorkshire area of the NCB, the head of administration for the south Yorkshire area of the NCB —who is one of my constituents—a team from British Rail management, a management team from the BSC at Scunthorpe, and officials of the NUM Yorkshire area, and it was chaired by the director of the Scunthorpe BSC, Mr. Danny Ward. It was decided to supply Scunthorpe steelworks with 15,700 tonnes of coal a week. The vice president of the Yorkshire area of the NUM, Mr. Sammy Thompson, asked, "Do you want any coke?" BSC management replied, "No. We do not want any." Coal came from the Yorkshire coalfield from 10 April until 23 May. Cortonwood colliery supplied 1,000 tons of that coal a week. That is the colliery which was told that it had five weeks' work left because of the lack of markets for coal. It started the strike that has now been going for 20 weeks. It is the one that could never sell its coal. Members of Cortonwood NUM have loaded coal to be sent to BSC Scunthorpe for wages of £1 a day and what they would have earned has been given to charity. The House and the country should know what has happened in regard to Scunthorpe. Until 23 May, the coal was supplied by contractors or mineworkers who worked for £1 a day.
On 22 May, the NUM, which was party to the agreement that I have described, received a telephone call from a trade union — not the management — in Scunthorpe steelworks. The union said that it had been told that 5,000 tonnes of coke were to be taken into the steelworks. It asked when that was likely to happen and was told, "Tomorrow." That is what led to the dispute in and around the Orgreave coke works. To find the culprit, one need look no further than the man who chaired the meeting on 9 April and who said that he did not need coke for Scunthorpe steelworks — the director of BSC Scunthorpe.
On 23 May lorries, some of them marked "Bulk Grain" and driven not by BSC drivers but by people who had never moved coke before, and with police protection back and front, have been run in and out of the coke works. It is to the credit of the people at the coke works that on every occasion they have walked out of the plant because they


disagree with the behaviour of the BSC management. They know that the BSC's taking stupid, unilateral action of that kind instead of discussing the matter with the people who could have supplied the coal and then allowed the coke to go out has prejudiced the position of the coke works. We hear a great deal from Conservative Members about parts of the BSC having to close, but if that coke works closes—I certainly hope that it will not close—the Yorkshire NUM will be in no way to blame.
When I asked officers of the Yorkshire NUM whether they would be prepared to attend a reconvened meeting if BSC said that it needed 5,000 tonnes of coke per week from Orgreave to save a blast furnace —that was the phrase used in the media to justify the unilateral action —they said that they would be prepared to attend such a meeting, to decide whether the coke was needed to save a blast furnace and, if so, to allow it to go from Orgreave coke works. That coke would then have gone by rail, just as the coal was going to BSC by rail, with the agreement of the rail unions and the British Railways Board in a sensible manner to keep jobs at BSC Scunthorpe instead of prejudicing the position. In the circumstances, the south Yorkshire NUM did all that it could for the BSC, so criticism from Conservative Members is completely unjustified.
The other aspect of the situation at Orgreave concerns the actions of police and pickets. On previous occasions in the House I have condemned people who throw stones and use violence against the police and I shall continue to do so, but I must put on record what I have seen with my own eyes and on tape. I note that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has left the Chamber. He referred to actions by police and pickets causing problems. I have told the Home Secretary about what has been happening. I have seen police run up to people cowering on their knees to protect themselves and baton them to the ground. People have had their limbs broken by truncheons at Orgreave. They have had their legs ripped open by the dogs let loose on them.
There are regulations providing that dogs, truncheons and other police actions must be used in a proper manner under legislation passed by this House, but on numerous occasions at Orgreave the police have ignored the regulations. I condemn that and the Home Secretary should also condemn it instead of sitting in the Chamber smiling and talking about law and order. Law and order means working together. It is not just for the people. The police must also ensure that law and order is dealt out properly and fairly. That is affecting many of the communities in my constituency. I believe that the effects of the police action in and around my constituency will be felt for a long time to come. I say to the Government that we cannot replace industrial relations and sensible industrial relations policies by police action and by attacks on people's state benefits. That is what is being attempted at present. By stopping state benefits to miners, it is hoped to make things more difficult for them and to make them afraid to go out on strike, as happened during the strike in my constitutency. Industrial relations cannot be replaced by such methods. The British people will make this clear. If the Government do not get the message soon, the British people will tell them at the next general election.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg,) who has just left the Chamber, I understand was

a coal miner during the last war, one of the so-called Bevin boys. While he was working down the mines to help fight a world war for the country by supplying coal for the armaments race so that we could stave off Naziism. I wonder whether he thought that he would ever be described as the enemy within for wanting to defend his community. We should remember the loyalty of the coal miners and how they kept the country's economy running not for one or two years but for generations in order to maintain electricity supplies and to keep industry going. It is an utter disgrace to question that loyalty.
I deal next with the utter contempt that the Prime Minister showed in her utterance last Thursday at the 1922 Committee. It is not, as she keeps telling us, a sign of strength. The right hon. Lady talks about leading the country from a position of strength. It is a position of weakness and cowardice to use the law and to try to abuse people and families in this way. It will not work.
I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment. The House should discuss even further what is now happening in the country.

Mr. Michael Morris: The enemy within is certainly not the mining communities. I was at the meeting of the 1922 Committee, and no reference was made to the mining communities. I hope that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will accept that from me.
The amendment is a highly mischievous and irrelevant one, and I believe that it is also irresponsible. It reflects all too clearly the Walter Mitty world of the shadow Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and, I am sorry to say, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), whom I imagine will catch your eye soon, Mr. Speaker.
The shadow Leader of the House suggested that the only man in Britain who had tried to bring the two sides together was the right hon. Member for Salford, East—and a lot of success he has had in 26 weeks in getting Mr. Scargill along to negotiate sensibly in any meeting that we have had. As every hon. Member knows, the chairman of the National Coal Board and the NCB itself have been willing to negotiate sensibly from the beginning, but the truth is that Mr. Scargill and his militants have ignored anything that has been put on the table except that, if they see something that they like, they take that bit, say that they will consider it, and then discuss something different. Mr. Scargill believes that he should ignore the NCB, and that he should ignore his members' interests. Above all, he shows that he totally ignores the Labour party.
Although it has been said many times in the House, it is worth repeating that the miners have been given a good pay offer. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Salford, East agreed that the miners had had a good pay offer. There is no compulsory redundancy for miners. That needs to be re-emphasised. The 34,000 people who went out of the shoe industry were never offered compulsory redundancy or alternative jobs, and some of them are still employed.
Criticism was made of the investment programme by two Opposition Members. The £7·6 billion investment programme envisaged for the period of the Conservative Government which was completed two years early is a major success. It is a commitment to the coal industry, and the shadow Leader of the House ought to acknowledge that fact.
The argument between the two sides revolves around the word "beneficially". It is worth reminding the House of the words discussed between the NCB and the NUM. They agreed that
where a comprehensive and in-depth investigation by their respective mining engineers shows that a colliery has no further mineable reserves that are workable or which can be beneficially developed, there will be a joint agreement between the board and the union that such a colliery shall be deemed exhausted.
With the exception of the word "beneficially" those words were written by the NUM.
Reference has been made by Opposition Members to the losses announced this morning—about £800 million last year and £2 billion over the last four years. Opposition Members who have had power in the past, and may wish to have it again, suggest that the country can continue to mine from coalmines that are not capable of beneficial output. They cannot honourably suggest that any Government would contemplate that.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East is genuine in his attempts to find a settlement. If he really wants to make a helpful contribution he should have some guts, go out into the field and spell out the benefits of the existing offer the the mining communities. He and all Oppossition Members know that this is the best offer that any miners have had anywhere in westen Europe. It is as good an offer as any Government would make. It is a better offer than the right hon. Gentleman's Government ever made.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I represent a constituency in which a high proportion of those in work have moved several times in their careers and expect to move several more times in the future. That is a natural part of being employed.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) who makes an important point.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East could also disown Mr. Scargill and the statement that he made on Channel 4, which has been repeated so often, that he has no intention of abiding by civil or criminal laws which restrict the ability of trade unions to fight for the rights of their members. The right hon. Gentleman would do much for the Labour party if he stood up and said that Mr. Scargill, any other militant, and everyone, must obey the law of the land and that the new kangaroo courts are unacceptable to working people of all opinions.
The right hon. Gentleman could also chivvy the Leader of the Opposition—he needs some chivvying. He could tell him that he should stop paying homage to Mr. Scargill and stop licking his boots at miners' rallies. The right hon. Gentleman should stand up for the rights of ordinary miners who want a ballot, the right to vote and the right to say what they believe in. If the right hon. Gentleman did that he would do a lot of good for his own party, for himself and, more importantly, for the mining communities.
The mining communities are suffering needlessly. Every hon. Member knows that the offer is good. The industry has a good future and the miners are being sadly misled. I am confident that the Government can sit out the difficulty, but I wish that they did not have to. I wish that the leadership in the mining community would put the genuine facts to the ordinary miner and show to them that there are prospects for the future.
If the right hon. Member for Salford, East really wants to do something to improve the position, he should hurry from here to the mining community and spell out the benefits of the offer on the table.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Before the House rises for the summer recess I believe that further attention should be given to what must be done to deal with the still serious security situation in Northern Ireland. It would be wrong of me not to recognise that the death toll has decreased since the mid-1970s, but equally wrong of the House to believe that that is due to a drop in politically motivated murders.
There have been two distinct types of murders in Northern Ireland over the past 15 years, especially following the prorogation of the Stormont Parliament in 1972. At that time people felt that their elected representatives had been denigrated. They turned, by and large, to community leaders from both sides who sprang up from street to street, and who led them into community violence. The IRA capitalised on that fully. The death roll in those years was from 400 to 500 people.
The community of Northern Ireland does not desire that type of violence. It gradually reasserted itself and drove out from its midst those false leaders. The death toll has gradually declined, until now we can count, sadly, on 80 to 100 deaths each year.
These deaths are caused almost exclusively by the IRA and by the so-called Irish National Liberation Army, for political reasons. That is why the House should consider what is happening along the only land frontier that the United Kingdom has with another country. There, the vast majority of these murders take place. Across that frontier, the weapons of war—the guns and the explosives for bombs—are being carried. Indeed, from the other side of that very frontier, terrorists at times make attacks from the safety of the Irish Republic on members of our security forces. In the past two weeks an attack was launched from within the Irish Republic on members of the security forces in Northern Ireland. The attack led to the death of two UDR soldiers—one a young man, and the other a young woman aged 20.
We know that the IRA is not only attacking security forces, who are locally based, but also members of the regular Army who come from constituencies represented by English, Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament.
The IRA also kills isolated farmers living close to the frontier who are not connected with the security forces in any way. The IRA chooses to kill members of the community that it claims to protect and represent: members of the minority Roman Catholic community. Today, indeed, a body is lying on a road close to the frontier with the Irish Republic. It is the body of a man who had been missing from his house for several days. I do not know his name, but I am fairly certain that when his name is released we shall find that he is a member of the Roman Catholic community who has been murdered by the IRA because he did not obey some of its directions.
Other Catholic members of the community have been murdered over the past few weeks because they refused to pay money to sustain the IRA. Therefore, we must realise that not just the majority community but the entire community, or at least all those who want to live normal lives within the United Kingdom, is suffering at the hands of the IRA.
During August, when the House is in recess, we shall have an invasion of Irish-American agitators, members of Noraid, and for their benefit the IRA will put on displays of armed strength. The IRA will execute a few people, as they call it, and display the ferocity that they have displayed each August for the past 10 or 15 years.
Unfortunately, we shall allow those American agitators into our country. We will not impose any restrictions upon them. The House should consider that and the Government should attempt to do something about it. It is folly. We are already committing one folly when we allow on to our television screens members of the IRA such as Gerry Adams and Danny Morrison. On television, they advocate, without the law taking action against them, violence against the community, and urge people to go to the ballot box with a rifle in one hand while casting their vote with the other. We have not learnt to deal with that. Those are the indigenous terrorists. We should not commit the double folly of importing Noraid representatives from America.
We should remember that in Northern Ireland one month of the school holidays has already gone. The children are beginning to get restless. The time has not been wasted by the terrorist godfathers, however. They have been stamping their influence on schoolchildren for four weeks now. They have been telling them to get their petrol bombs primed and to wait for August because at that time, as they say, "We shall have a go at the police, and it will all be good fun." The House must be aware of that. Sadly, in the next few weeks some of those young people will be misled by their godfathers. I make no apology for saying that they will be misled by Gerry Adams and Danny Morrison. When they are hit by a rubber bullet fired by policemen, who must have some means of defending themselves, and when one of them dies we shall hear a great outcry about police violence.
The debate has been mostly about the miners' strike rather than what I believe should have been discussed. It is significant that the hon. Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) and myself have chosen to discuss subjects where lives are at stake, matters of life and death. Those who, on behalf of some of the miners, point a finger at the police and criticise them and who try to run down and undermine the authority of the forces of law and order, could do well to look carefully at what happened 15 years ago in Northern Ireland when certain people tried to run down the efforts of the police to maintain law and order. Now the vast majority of them are sad to find that they have placed themselves under the control of men of violence and men who exploit the weaknesses and injustices which are bound to occur from time to time in any society. Weaknesses and injustices can be put right, but if we undermine the real institutions of Government, and undermine law and order in the way that I have heard it advocated that we should, we are likely to plunge our nation into a greater tragedy than we can envisage.
To return to the IRA, if we allow American agitators to come in, if we allow the incursions from the Irish Republic across the border, and if we allow the godfathers to exploit the young people who are now on school holidays, we shall be committing a great crime ourselves.
I implore the Government—not only the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office but the Secretary of State for Defence and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces—to consider very carefully what

may well happen within the next few weeks in Northern Ireland. The Government must take steps to ensure that it does not occur.
Why do I emphasise the need to have the security forces increased along the frontier with the Irish Republic? Anybody who reads today's Official Report will see that yesterday I asked two questions. One was addressed to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I asked him how many formal protests he had made during 1984 about incursions from across the frontier with the Irish Republic. His answer was:
None. We are satisfied with the excellent co-operation that we receive from the Government of the Irish Republic in countering terrorism.
I asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for extradition of persons wanted in connection with scheduled offences had been made to the Irish Republic in the last three and a half years. His answer was:
Since 1 January 1980, 53 warrants … have been forwarded by the Royal Ulster Constabulary … in relation to terrorist-type offences. Of these, one application has been granted.
That is less than 2 per cent. Some co-operation! That is one reason why I ask this House to increase the security forces available, so that I do not have to come back here—whether it is earlier or in October—and recount a series of murders which have taken place in Northern Ireland constituencies.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: One of the important facts is the morale of the British forces serving in Northern Ireland. Will not the news that an additional allowance is to be given to them help to maintain security in Northern Ireland, and help to stop the very things that we are worried about in regard to the IRA?

Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's interest in the welfare of the security forces in relation to the Northern Ireland allowance. His was a helpful effort, and I am happy to say that the conclusion was correct. Our security forces operate under the most arduous conditions which affect not only the soldiers but their families. The members of the security forces appreciate the efforts made on their behalf by hon. Members.
It is apt that in conclusion I should mention the young men who are detained in prison on the Secretary of State's pleasure. I had hoped to raise this matter on an Adjournment debate, but I realise that it is difficult for the House to find time to allow each hon. Member who applies to have an Adjournment debate. However, I shall be trying again in the new Session. Some men aged about 26 or 27 who are now in prison were induced to commit serious crimes from 1972 onwards. They were induced in the same way as I predict young people will be induced into commiting crimes this August. I hope that the House will find time to consider what has happened to those young men 10, 11 and 12 years later. They have known nothing but the prison system. If the House could find time to debate their position, that would be a constructive way of remedying one of the tragedies. With the request that we look to the future with both strength and compassion, I shall now sit down.

Mr. Greg Knight: I shall introduce a new matter into the debate. It is a subject of national importance that must be aired before the summer recess


—the scandal of at least sharp practice and, some would say, fraud carried out by some motor vehicle garages and quick-fit centres. There is a dual problem: the first part concerns Ministry of Transport testing—[Interruption.] I would rather continue without interruptions from the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). I listened in silence to his speech, which contained much vigour but precious little else, and I hope that he will do me the courtesy of listening to my speech in silence. I fear that he wishes to become the understudy of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
The problem with MOT testing by garages arises from the fact that garages can charge up to a maximum fee, but there is not a minimum fee. Some garages, believing that this may be a way to attract extra business, have decided to discount the fees that they charge for MOT testing by offering half-price tests or, in some cases, free tests. Hon. Members may ask, "Why does it matter? Does it not mean that the customer gets a good deal?" But the problem is that if a garage undertakes an MOT test at half price or for no fee, it will make a loss, unless it is asked to carry out other work.
I have evidence that many garages which, on the face of it, may seem to be giving a good service to the customer are failing vehicles that should receive a certificate. They then offer to carry out relatively minor work, such as adjusting the headlights or replacing brake pipes, and say that they can do the work the same day at a fairly small cost. They are therefore making a profit because that vehicle should have been passed and not failed. The public think that they are getting a good deal but in reality they are being ripped off.
I am grateful to Mr. Ken Reeves of the Market Bosworth service station in Leicestershire and also to Sitwell garage at Spondon in my constituency, who have brought these matters to my attention. The matter has received some publicity in the east midlands and I have received a large postbag on this subject. However, as I am aware of the lack of time, I shall read only briefly from two of the letters that I have received, which highlight the problems. One letter comes from a gentleman in Derby. He refers to the occasion on which he took his car for an MOT test and says:
It failed on what the testing examiner said was perished front flexible brake hose pipes and corroded steel pipes across the rear axle … Not being prepared or in the position to afford astronomical garage fees … After taking the relevant brake pipes off my car I went to my Lada specialist to obtain … new pipes".
He took the pipe to be sure that the correct size was obtained. He continued:
My Lada specialist asked me what was wrong with my old brake pipes.
The motorist told him that they had caused the car to fail the MOT test. The specialist was amazed and said that the pipes were in good order, and that the car should not have failed the test.
Mr. Hart, who is the proprietor of the Sitwell garage, wrote to me in the following terms:
As a proprietor of a well known garage business in Derby and personally carrying out between seventy and ninety M.O.T. tests every week, I am naturally most concerned. I can also confirm that there are many cowboy garages … carrying out M.O.T. tests.
He then referred to a comment that I had made in the local press. He also said:

On the matter you have mentioned, I am aware that this is a disgraceful episode and I would like you to draw the matter to the attention of the public.
The other matter that I wish to raise briefly concerns the so-called quick-fit centres, which we have all seen. They offer new exhaust systems and shock absorber systems at attractive prices, often saying that the work will be done while the customer waits. However, the customer does not know that in many of these cases the employee is on a commission on the number of new parts that he can sell. Therefore, there is a temptation that, when a car is brought in for checking over, and part of the exhaust system is defective, the fitter says that the whole system needs replacing.
The Sitwell garage says about this matter:
I would also like to bring to your attention unscrupulous practices which are being carried out by apparently reputable national companies from impressive premises and which are all labelled as garages. There are four of these outlets in Derby, all owned by either component, tyre or exhaust manufacturers, but not, of course, in the main, using the main manufacturers trading title. I have been approached on many, many occasions by customers"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. 'There are a number of hon. Gentlemen who wish to speak in this debate. It is a little unfair to go into detail about these matters. The hon. Gentleman must convince us of his case as to why the House should not adjourn.

Mr. Knight: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I thought perhaps that a similar comment might have been made about another hon. Member's speech.
This is a matter of national importance, and only the tip of the iceberg is emerging. It is clear that members of the public are being taken in by offers of cheap garage servicing and of cheap repairs to motor vehicles. This subject should receive the widest possible publicity before the House adjourns. I accept that garages have a right to make a living, but they do not have a right to make money from members of the public by deception and by an abuse of their position.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I intervene briefly to support my right hon. and hon. Friends who have concentrated on the mining dispute. We make no apology for that. The House should not go into recess with this major dispute now in its 20th week, because another three months could spell disaster for the industry and the economy and cause further problems of law and order.
I listened carefully to the speech of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy. He is normally a fair man and concentrates on the subject, but he did not deal with the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends or about how the dispute can be resolved. That is the key issue facing the country.
This dispute is about jobs and about saving areas of the country from lasting unemployment.

Mr. Maude: rose—

Mr. Orme: I am sorry, but I have very little time.
This disputes takes place at a time of mass unemployment. The unemployed figure is now 3 million, and much of that unemployment has been created by the Government's run-down of industry. We need look only at steel, shipbuilding, motor vehicles, heavy engineering and textiles—to name but a few—to know that that is so. The miners have said, "Enough is enough." They will


stand up and fight for their jobs as well as for the future jobs of young people. That has led to great hardship, but, as some of my hon. Friends have said, the pain barrier has been passed and the miners will continue to fight.
Unfortunately, the Government have thrown their full weight behind the political and financial fight against the miners. This dispute has already cost the nation more than £2 billion, including lost coal production, lost taxes, social security payments and a massive bill for policing the strike.
We were told that there was an excess of 4 million tonnes a year which Mr. MacGregor wanted to remove. Since this dispute began, we have already lost 48 million tonnes, or 12 years of excess. The Government may say that some of this is uneconomic in that it is deep-mine coal which costs too much, but coal is an asset which is precious beyond what simple profit and loss accounting methods would have us believe. The value of our supplies goes way beyond the balance sheet.
The closure of pits will not release other valuable resources that are of benefit to the nation. These pits can be put to no other use, and there is little likelihood of redundant miners finding alternative work. Coal left in the ground means a net loss to the nation now and in the future.
In The Guardian on Tuesday, Lord Kaldor said in a letter:
But even this ignores that uneconomic pits, though they cause financial losses, bring a net benefit in the form of an additional supply of exhaustible resources which otherwise would not be retrievable. The gross national product, now and in the future, will therefore certainly be higher if they are kept working than if they are closed down.
That is the answer to the uneconomic pit argument.
Some Conservative Members have criticised my role. It has been said that I have achieved nothing in 20 weeks. My achievement has been to bring both sides together—[Interruption.] I do not find the issue funny. People are suffering in mining communities and we are endeavouring to bring about negotiations.
The last negotiations did not break down when they ended last Wednesday evening—they were adjourned, and we must attempt to restart them. I have spoken to Mr. Scargill, Mr. Heathfield and Mr. MacGregor about resuming talks, while acknowledging the difficulty about the word "beneficial". However, that is a big word which deals with the uneconomic pits. It is an important division that must be bridged, and I believe that it can be bridged.
The Government are wasting money when they should be putting that money into the areas that need it. We shall need the coal from those pits in a few years' time, but we cannot reopen any pits that are closed. We might need that coal sooner rather than later if there is another oil crisis in the middle east. We are already importing too much coal.
There is a different way to deal with the issue, which requires a vision of the coal industry and energy generally. It should be based on "Plan for Coal" — which, incidentally, the Government endorsed in 1981. I see a smile on the Under-Secretary's face. It is not, as the Prime Minister said, that the Government endorsed the 1974 document — they endorsed the 1977 document, from which the word "uneconomic" was removed.
It would be absolutely wrong for the House to go into recess during such a major dispute. The Government must intervene to resolve it—not to extend it. We do not

want to hear any nonsense about the Government agreeing to close pits and make redundancy payments as a way to split the mining communities. We are past the stage where the mining communities can be split. Those working will probably continue to work, but those who are not working will remain on strike, and they form some 80 per cent. of the mining industry's workforce.
Conservative Members should apply their minds to the question of how the dispute can be resolved. The Leader of the House, as a senior member of the Government, has a responsibility to answer our points. This dispute can and must be resolved by negotiation, but any agreement must be acceptable both to the unions and to the NCB. I believe that that can be achieved, but it needs a Government who believe in the mining industry. The Government must approach both sides in the dispute to bring them together. They must use their role—which they are entitled to do —on the tripartite basis of "Plan for Coal". It is on that basis that we move the amendment. The Government have a case to answer. They should—indeed, they must—intervene. We believe that this dispute can be resolved.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I begin by commending to the House the motion which stands in my name and invite the House to reject the amendment.
On a previous occasion—doubtless it is apocryphal—the late Iain Macleod was confronted by an amendment broadly similar to that which has been tabled on this occasion by the Opposition Front Bench, and he threatened to accept it, with more dire consequences than almost anything else that had happened in the previous weeks.
As for the device which has been adopted today, the House of Commons is an innovative and adaptive organisation, and I have no hostility to this debate proceeding within the framework of an Opposition Front Bench amendment. However, I am entitled to place on record that when we moved to a timed debate for the recess motion we did it on the assumption that that was of merit to Back Benchers, and the original Procedure Committee recommendation of 90 minutes was set aside by the House and a three-hour debate placed in its stead. This has been described as exceptional. I do not mind, so long as the exception does not become the Front Bench rule. Back-Bench interests are secured by our eternal vigilance, and, although I am perfectly happy with the procedure that has been adopted today, I suggest that every Front Bencher should have a Back-Bench instinct within him and should wish this debate to remain in its normal form.
Reasoned objection to the motion was argued by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). I confess to a growing affection for the right hon. Gentleman and the arguments that he puts. [Interruption.] In their content, fashion and persuasiveness they increasingly become like a Daily Telegraph editorial, and that is marking out for him and for us an interesting future.
Having paid my fee by way of those compliments, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that under the Standing Orders there is every provision for the recall of Parliament should circumstances so determine. No Government could contemplate a deteriorating situation of the character that has been portrayed by some hon. Members today without


being conscious of the possible need for such a recall. As our history is studded with such precedents, there is hardly any need for me to dwell on that.
The right hon. Member for Devonport harmed his proposition by making it not into a rather open offer but into a conditional and mechanistic one related to certain times and dates. The only circumstances of which I might have been persuaded would have been a formula which enabled me to avoid the orgy of standing ovations at the Conservative party conference. What the right hon. Gentleman had devised was a quite different formula. It was one which would enable him to attend and receive a standing ovation. I do not want to anticipate Tuesday's debate, but I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman will not be giving up his spot to the leader of the Liberal party on that occasion.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: rose—

Mr. Biffen: No, I will not give way.
The economy is not quite in such a disastrous condition as the right hon. Member for Devonport suggested. Any economy which is growing at the rate of 2.75 per cent. in gross domestic product per year and which has the supporting good evidence of industrial, investment and export output—

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Biffen: I will not give way. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has not got into today's debate and I am sorry for him, but that was not my fault. I am taking up much less time answering the debate than many Back Benchers took up in contributing to it.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Devonport will understand when I say that, even on the ground of merit, I was not persuaded by his argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) emphasised his anxiety about the rating system and said that until it was reformed he would continue speaking in these debates. One normally says after a maiden speech that we hope to hear from the hon. Member again, and my hon. Friend has fulfilled that criterion.
My hon. Friend is also worried about the Civil Aviation Authority report and its considerable impact on airline policy and airports policy. I note what he said and will pass it on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, so that there is no misunderstanding, I must say that I cannot go beyond what I said at business questions today.
The hon. Members for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) spoke of the continuing security difficulties in the Province. We have an obligation to them, because they reminded us that all our problems, which are serious, and go to the heart of social and economic policies, do not have the fundamental seriousness of the conflict and problems of Northern Ireland. Familiarity over the past few years has perhaps disarmed our realisation of the threat that exists in the Province.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) mentioned the National Audit Office. I will see how the matter can best come before the Procedure Committee and perhaps I might have the chance

to discuss the subject with my hon. Friend before the recess. He is crusading effectively on an important House of Commons matter.
My hon. Friend also invited me to comment on the outcome of Israel's general election. As I am trying to build bridges with the alliance, I thought that the outcome of that election needed no commentary from anyone interested in stable government and that the lesson could stand on its own.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) helpfully reminded the House of the importance of neonatal intensive care and the great interest that the House has properly shown in that subject, not least through the report of the Select Committee on Social Services. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend in the autumn when, no doubt, he will be trying to secure parliamentary time to have the matter considered further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) mentioned the problems of the motor industry. The best way for me to help him is to draw his speech to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It seemed to me that my hon. Friend raised matters that could be dealt with by the Office of Fair Trading.
The remaining speeches in the debate were devoted to the mining dispute. The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) spoke about the determination of the mining community. I accept that. One of the great challenges in the debate is not to live by the caricatures that are created of both sides. I have no doubt that there is a powerful will and determination in the mining community, where it is felt that justice lies with its cause. However, I suspect that that is also true of those in the mining communities that are at work and feel that their motives have been cruelly and viciously misrepresented and that they have as much right to the concern and judgment of the House as has any other section of the industry.
The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) made a measured and effective speech. I realise that I am about to damage irreparably his reputation and status in the Labour party, but I could not help thinking that if there has to be a dialogue and an attempt to get a better understanding—and perhaps, eventually, an agreement in the dispute—they can be achieved only through the voice represented by the hon. Gentleman. I could not help but contrast that voice with another voice frequently mentioned in the debate today—that of Mr. Scargill—and I realise that there is a distance of light years between the hon. Gentleman and Mr. Scargill in terms of temperament and approach. Temperament and approach are matters of real significance in such issues.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) again rehearsed his hostility to the police and his charge of police brutality. I do not believe for a moment that the resolution of this industrial dispute will be brought any closer by speeches such as that we heard today from the hon. Gentleman. I am convinced that the overwhelming belief is that the police are being used for a legitimate end—enabling those who wish to go to work to do so—and that the violence that has been engendered derives entirely from that point. If the moral authority of the dispute was so overwhelming, there would be no need for pickets other than a token number to inform people of the nature of the dispute.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) made a persuasive speech. He talked about the need to stave off


unemployment. Unemployment must of course be a factor which governs all those who operate in industry and commerce, but one cannot fight unemployment by taking refuge in economic unrealities. There is no future for the coal industry now or next year unless it is grouped around its lowest-cost productive outlets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Moms) advanced a stout and well argued defence of Government policy, and particularly the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this matter. In my view, the Prime Minister is quite right to identify the unwholesome elements in this dispute — violence and extra-parliamentary ambitions — and to contrast them with the legitimate interests and traditions of the mining work force.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, That the amendment be made, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Periodic adjournments).

The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 261.

Division No. 436]
[7.27 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Douglas, Dick


Alton, David
Dubs, Alfred


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eastham, Ken


Ashdown, Paddy
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Ashton, Joe
Ewing, Harry


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Fatchett, Derek


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnett, Guy
Fisher, Mark


Barron, Kevin
Flannery, Martin


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Beith, A. J.
Forrester, John


Benn, Tony
Foulkes, George


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Bermingham, Gerald
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Bidwell, Sydney
Freud, Clement


Blair, Anthony
Garrett, W. E.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
George, Bruce


Boyes, Roland
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Gould, Bryan


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Bruce, Malcolm
Hardy, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Harman, Ms Harriet


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Heffer, Eric S.


Clarke, Thomas
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cohen, Harry
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
John, Brynmor


Conlan, Bernard
Johnston, Russell


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cowans, Harry
Kilfedder, James A.


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Craigen, J. M.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Crowther, Stan
Kirkwood, Archy


Cunningham, Dr John
Lamond, James


Dalyell, Tam
Leadbitter, Ted


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Leighton, Ronald


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Litherland, Robert


Dewar, Donald
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dixon, Donald
Loyden, Edward


Dormand, Jack
McDonald, Dr Oonagh





McGuire, Michael
Rowlands, Ted


McNamara, Kevin
Sheerman, Barry


Madden, Max
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Marek, Dr John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Meacher, Michael
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Michie, William
Skinner, Dennis


Mikardo, Ian
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Snape, Peter


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, William
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tinn, James


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Torney, Tom


Park, George
Wainwright, R.


Parry, Robert
Wallace, James


Patchett, Terry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pavitt, Laurie
Wareing, Robert


Pendry, Tom
Weetch, Ken


Penhaligon, David
Welsh, Michael


Pike, Peter
Winnick, David


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Woodall, Alec


Prescott, John
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)



Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Robin Corbett.


Rooker, J. W,



Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Chope, Christopher


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Amess, David
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Ancram, Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Arnold, Tom
Cockeram, Eric


Ashby, David
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Conway, Derek


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Coombs, Simon


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Cope, John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Corrie, John


Baldry, Tony
Cranborne, Viscount


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Crouch, David


Batiste, Spencer
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bendall, Vivian
Dicks, Terry


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Dorrell, Stephen


Benyon, William
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Berry, Sir Anthony
Dover, Den


Bevan, David Gilroy
Durant, Tony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dykes, Hugh


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Eggar, Tim


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Evennett, David


Body, Richard
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Farr, Sir John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Forman, Nigel


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fox, Marcus


Bright, Graham
Freeman, Roger


Brinton, Tim
Fry, Peter


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gale, Roger


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Browne, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bruinvels, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Buck, Sir Antony
Goodlad, Alastair


Budgen, Nick
Gorst, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Gow, Ian


Burt, Alistair
Grant, Sir Anthony


Butcher, John
Greenway, Harry


Butterfill, John
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Carttiss, Michael
Grist, Ian


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan






Hayes, J.
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hayhoe, Barney
Merchant, Piers


Heddle, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Henderson, Barry
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hickmet, Richard
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Miscampbell, Norman


Hill, James
Moate, Roger


Hordern, Peter
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Howard, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Moore, John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hunter, Andrew
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Murphy, Christopher


Jessel, Toby
Needham, Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Nelson, Anthony


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Neubert, Michael


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Tony


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Nicholls, Patrick


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Norris, Steven


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Onslow, Cranley


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Lamont, Norman
Osborn, Sir John


Lawrence, Ivan
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Lester, Jim
Parris, Matthew


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Lightbown, David
Pattie, Geoffrey


Lilley, Peter
Pawsey, James


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Lord, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Luce, Richard
Powley, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


McCrindle, Robert
Price, Sir David


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Proctor, K. Harvey


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Maclean, David John
Raffan, Keith


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Maginnis, Ken
Rathbone, Tim


Major, John
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Marland, Paul
Rhodes James, Robert


Marlow, Antony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Mather, Carol
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Maude, Hon Francis
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)





Roe, Mrs Marion
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Thorne, Neil (IIford S)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thurnham, Peter


Rowe, Andrew
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Tracey, Richard


Ryder, Richard
Trippier, David


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Trotter, Neville


Sayeed, Jonathan
Twinn, Dr Ian

Scott, Nicholas
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Viggers, Peter


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waddington, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Silvester, Fred
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sims, Roger
Walden, George


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waller, Gary


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Speed, Keith
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Speller, Tony
Warren, Kenneth


Spencer, Derek
Watson, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Watts, John


Squire, Robin
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Steen, Anthony
Wheeler, John


Stern, Michael
Whitfield, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Whitney, Raymond


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stokes, John
Woodcock, Michael


Stradling Thomas, J.
Yeo, Tim


Sumberg, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, John (Solihull)



Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Tellers for the Noes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter



Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Wednesday 1st August do adjourn till Monday 22nd October, and that the House shall not adjourn on Wednesday 1st August until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Finance Act 1984
2. Appropriation Act 1984
3. Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1984
4. Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984
5. Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984
6. Health and Social Security Act 1984
7. Trade Union Act 1984
8. Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council Act 1984
9. Dartford Tunnel Act 1984
10. Portsea Harbour Company Act 1984
11. Cornwall County Council Act 1984
12. British Railways (No. 2) Act 1984

Housing Defects Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

DESIGNATION OF DEFECTIVE DWELLINGS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 21, after "dwelling" insert
by virtue of the designation in question

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 28 and 54.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we clarify the position of the rights of Back Benchers when Divisions take place this evening on Lords amendments in view of the Government's hope that they will be supported by a majority? Will we be given an opportunity to divide on those amendments in the event that Members believe that those amendments are sufficiently important to be divided upon? May we have an assurance at the commencement of the proceedings that, in so far as hon. Members have a right to divide, we shall be able to exercise that right in a perfectly normal and reasonable way?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman need not ask such a question. He knows that every Lords amendment is put to the House, and the Question is put from the Chair. If any hon. Member wishes to divide against it, that is exactly what may happen.

Mr. Ancram: These are lengthy but technical amendments to ensure that there is no overlap or conflict in the provisions in cases where the same dwelling house is subject to two designations, for instance, national designation under clause 1, and a local designation under clause 10. The principal amendment is this rather lengthy new clause. Hon. Members might find it helpful if I were to explain briefly the effect of the provisions in these cases of what might be called double designation.
There are four basic elements in the new clause. First, it deals with a case where an owner has applied for assistance under one designation, and has been notified by the authority that he is entitled to assistance by way of repurchase. In that case, the clause provides that he should not be eligible for assistance under any subsequent designation because obviously it would be pointless to allow the application to be processed in the normal way where it had already been decided that the house must be repurchased.
Secondly, the clause deals with the situation where a person is entitled to assistance by way of reinstatement grant and it becomes apparent to the authority that he is eligible for assistance under a subsequent designation. In that case, the clause provides that the authority should reassess the case in the light of the subsequent designation, and give the owner a further notice under clause 4(2) stating the form of assistance to which he is entitled. It would not be necessary for the owner to submit a separate application. Where assistance is also to be by way of


reinstatement grant under the subsequent designation, the clause provides that fresh notices should be issued by the authority relating to the work required to make good the defect and to the amount of expenditure to be incurred. In such cases, the expenditure limit will be the aggregate of the expenditure limits applicable to each of the designations.
Finally, the clause makes provision for cases where an owner may be committed to, or has undertaken, work with a view to reinstatement under a first designation, and then becomes entitled to assistance by way of repurchase under a subsequent designation. In such cases, the owner is to be allowed to complete the work and receive payment for it.
I appreciate that this is a complex matter. I hope that I have been able to give the House some idea of how the scheme is to work where one dwelling might come within the scope of two separate designations.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Minister advise the House what opportunities there are for people to apply to local authorities for ex gratia grant payments from local authorities if they occupy dwellings that come within the provisions of the legislation in advance of the Bill receiving Royal Assent and being implemented? I was advised by Department of the Environment officials that ex gratia payments could be made by local authorities. Two of my constituents have applied for them.

Mr. Ancram: I shall look into the cases which the hon. Member mentions and write to him. I should like to be sure that he receives a correct answer.
These are complex matters. I hope that I have explained how the new provision will work and that the House will support it.

Mr. Terry Davis: I am not satisfied with the Minister's explanation of the amendments. I am particularly worried about the effects of Lords amendment No. 1 which changes clause 1. Under the clause as it stands the Secretary of State may vary or revoke a designation, but
no variation or revocation shall affect the operation of the provisions of this Act in relation to any dwelling if … it is a defective dwelling".
The Lords amendment refers to a defective dwelling
by virtue of the designation in question".
That seems to limit the clause. Under the clause as it stands the Secretary of State cannot vary if a building has physical defects. According to the amendment, the Secretary of State will not be able to vary if the dwelling is defective
by virtue of designation".
I raised the problem of Smith houses on Report on 21 June when I asked the Government what they intended to do about the problem of Smith houses in Birmingham. I declare a constituency interest because there are several hundreds of Smith houses in my constituency. The same houses can be found in constituencies represented by Government Members. We have been waiting for a long time for a decision by the Government on whether such houses should be designated as defective dwellings under the Bill.
People have been led to believe by the Government and by the Birmingham city council that Smith houses will be designated, but whenever we have pressed the Minister he has dodged the issue. On 21 June the Minister for Housing

and Construction assured the House that a decision about Smith houses would be made at the earliest opportunity. That was five weeks ago. The issue was raised twice in the House of Lords by Lord Graham of Edmonton. The Government had at least two opportunities in the other place to make an announcement.
Perhaps the Government have made an announcement in a press release, but I have not read anything in the local papers about it. I have read every issue of Hansard since 21 June in case the designation was announced in response to a written question, perhaps planted by a Government Member, but I have not seen anything about it.
I shall not be put off. I ask the Minister to make an announcement tonight. The problem affects not only Birmingham, but several other constituencies. People who have bought Smith houses in other constituencies have contacted me. In the last few weeks I have been told about houses sold in constituencies such as Aldridge-Brownhills and in Walsall.
The Minister has said that the problem is the material used for the foundation of Smith houses. We are aware of that problem. The use of untreated shale in the foundation of Smith houses built in Birmingham, and in my constituency in particular, is a contributory factor, but it is not the only reason for the defects in Smith houses. There are many other defects that cannot be attributed to shale. Those defects are affecting Smith houses in Birmingham and outside the city.
I make no apology for raising the matter again tonight. We are still waiting for the announcement that we were promised would be given at the earliest possible opportunity. The Minister said in the debate on 21 June that he would have "a further word" with me later. We have certainly had casual conversations, but I am still waiting for an announcement. Casual conversations in New Palace Yard and expressions of sympathy will not cut much ice with my constituents who have bought defective houses.
I hope that we shall hear an announcement tonight, although I would not describe it as being given at the earliest opportunity if the Minister announced tonight that he had designated the Smith houses. I shall thank him if he does so on behalf of my constituents; but I shall make the point that he has made the announcement at the last possible opportunity.

Sir Reginald Eyre: I associate myself with the doubts about the amendment that have been expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). I follow him in saying to the Minister that there is concern in the city of Birmingham about this enormous problem. More than 500 owner-occupied Smith houses are suffering from defects.
As the Minister knows, the BRE report was received in December last year. From our examination of the report, we are sure in Birmingham that the Smith houses there qualify under clause 1 to be accepted within the national scheme, because of their defective design and construction.
My hon. Friend the Minister was kind enough to come to Birmingham on 25 May. He visited several defective Smith houses in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan) and in my constituency in Hall Green. Earlier, the Minister was good


enough to visit houses in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King).
We know that the Minister is very much aware of the problems, but when he replied to the hon. Member for Hodge Hill on 21 June he said that the decision must take account of whether the defects were common to the Smith houses as a class, or whether the problem was local.
The Minister may be helped by knowing that defects in Smith houses in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) are similar in nature to the defects of the houses in Birmingham. I feel sure that that will help the Minister to decide the main question to which he referred on 21 June. Consequently, I hope that when he replies he will be able to say that, in the circumstancies, a decision to designate the Smith houses in Birmingham as one of the groups coming within the national scheme will be coming shortly.
I do not want to speak at undue length. I know that, as a result of the Minister's visit and the representations that have been made to him, he knows well the serious nature of the problems affecting houses in Birmingham. I hope that the Minister will be able to reply in the reassuring terms that I have asked of him, especially having regard to his knowledge of the problems.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I should like to follow the queries of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) by referring to the proposal to amend the wording of clause 1.
The wording will remain substantially unchanged, but the point in question is the designation of properties. That designation is all-important to my constituents in Yardley and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Hall Green and Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and the hon. Member for Hodge Hill. We have been patient about awaiting the pronouncement of my hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Construction. It is significant that it was at this time a year ago that I approached my hon. Friend to ask about this very point. I had been allowed to raise the matter on an Adjournment debate, when I questioned the structural nature of Smith houses.
The report that my hon. Friend was kind enough to authorise and that we all awaited bore out the contention that not just local strata of clay cause sulphate growth and that there were generic problems in this type of housing regardless of the geographical area in which the houses were built. It was found that there was structural steel in those properties, in the shape of carrying handles that interwove and therefore became a structural feature between the blocks that they supported. There were other defects.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he feels that those houses come within the designated type of property, the first type of property that was investigated—that is, properties of reinforced steel. I hope that my hon. Friend can now say that our constituents will be entitled to compensation in the same way as the owners of other houses in the main group so far affected.
The Minister was good enough to inform the House that numerous houses—about 28 types—including Boot and

Wates houses, were subject to remuneration and would come within the designation of the clause. I should like to ask what the effect of the amendment is.
My hon. Friend was also good enough to visit my constituency in Yardley as well as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green. He diligently sought out Smith houses, including the house of Mr. Kyte, but first he went by accident to a Boot house opposite that Smith house. I pointed out to my hon. Friend that the Smith house was in abysmal condition compared with the pristine condition of the Boot house that he visited by mistake.
It would be appropriate if at this time we could finally know whether Smith houses are included and subject to designation and whether they will be automatically on the pay-out list for refurbishment or purchase by the local authority. I would deeply appreciate it if at this time, just before the recess, all of us could go home to assure our constituents, who are worried beyond any measure of doubt, and have been worried for a long time, that the amendment means that Smith houses will be eligible for the proper and correct compensation under the designation and that it will be automatic compensation after the procedures have been gone through, and not at the discretion of the local authority.

8 pm

Mr. John Marek: I am very concerned about the clause because it results from legislation by the Government that was not properly thought out. Having been elected in 1979, the Conservative party, with its dogmatic zeal, was very keen to introduce legislation allowing people to buy their own council houses.
I should like to make it clear that I am not against people buying their own council houses, provided that the stock of council houses is maintained and that waiting lists are kept down. When the Government introduced legislation allowing people to buy their council houses, theydid not, apparently, look beyond the first two or three years. It is now becoming evident that some people who bought their council houses are now unable to sell them because of defects that were not apparent at the time that the valuations were made and the contracts entered into. That happened with the Airey houses which are within the designation.
If people have substandard Airey houses they can look forward to some redress. It is by no means clear that everyone who lives in an Airey house will benefit from the provisions or that the repairs will be done 100 per cent. The construction of Airey houses is well known to hon. Members. Some of the defects are very hard to find. In some cases the houses are of such poor quality that no amount of repair and redress can make them suitable. Even if an Airey house has been repaired and is structurally sound, there is still a stigma attached to the house and it is more difficult to sell than a house built on more traditional lines.
Although Airey houses are within the designation, there are many other houses which are not. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) referred to the Smith houses which are not within the designation. Surely there is inequality in that respect. If the Government apply principles or laws to one set of people, I should have thought they would be keen to apply those laws or principles to everyone. Why should some people be incapable of benefiting from the legislation?
When people have council houses valued, the valuation is not particularly lengthy or thorough. The valuer will spend 10 or 15 minutes in looking round the house. Valuers are busy people and have not got all day in which to look at council houses, so that, if a house appears to be the same as the others in the street, they will simply decide to value the house at £X thousand. Valuers do not necessarily go into every nook and cranny to see whether a house is in good order.
What happens, then, to people who, having bought their council houses, suddenly find that there is a serious structural defect that was not obvious to the valuer when he looked round a typical council house? There are houses which do not fall into any particular class but which people have bought only to find that they are disadvantaged later by being unable to sell them. The people concerned may wish to retire or to go to a different part of the country, but because they have council houses which are not in the designation they are not able to sell them.
One would have hoped that the Government would, certainly at this late stage, come back to the House with a Bill which did not have glaring inequities in it. I would have expected to find some degree of generosity, with the Government being prepared to look at each individual case. Could not some funds have been provided by the Government to help people in the circumstances that I have outlined?
If that is not done and the Government insist on accepting these amendments, some people will be disadvantaged. A new class of citizens will be created—people who have bought council houses but who cannot move from them. It is a new form of feudalism, as we had with tied cottages for agricultural workers. In this case the Government are performing the role of the squire and are saying, "We shall not move you because it will cost us more money. Therefore, you must stay in your tied cottage or house although it may have structural defects. You can reduce the value by 50 per cent., or knock £7,000 off its price—you can even make a loss on the house—but you still cannot sell it."
I do not wish to continue for too long, because the evening is young and we still have 65 amendments to discuss. Will the Government do a little more for those individuals who will suffer and who must have a grievance, because people who have bought Airey houses will nearly always be recompensed, but those who live in Smith houses or in other houses with defects will not benefit from the legislation? It is clearly iniquitous, and it shows that the Government are not worried about whether people buy council houses. They are more concerned with political dogma and with winning general elections. They promised people a carrot, so that they believed that they would benefit. Some have benefited, and I welcomed the Government's increase in the discounts from 50 to 60 per cent., because the more discounts that are given to people who live in council houses, the more wealth will be redistributed. That is a good thing.
If these amendments are accepted, a category of people will believe that others in similar positions will have been looked after by the Government but that they have not. The Government must be generous and say, "We shall think again. We shall try to tidy the amendment so that everyone is treated equitably." However, they may say, "We are not worried about this. All that we care about is political

dogma, and as long as the Bill gets on the statute book, we shall have done our duty." I await the Minister's reply with interest.

Mr. Tony Durant: I had not intended to speak to this amendment—

Mr. John Fraser: Sit down then.

Mr. Durant: —but I wish to mention the designation—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly saw an hon. Member representing the Government, and also the payroll vote in the House, turn to an hon. Member speaking during our debate and heard him ask him to sit down. That raises substantial constitutional issues. If an hon. Member, elected to the House by the people of the country, is subjected to intimidation from a Front Bench spokesman or a Government appointee—in effect, a Minister—surely the hon. Gentleman who is asked to resume his seat during his speech should bring an allegation of contempt against the hon. Member who issued the request.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I do not think that a point of order arises. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for a long time, and he will know that representations are made to hon. Members. The Chair knows nothing about those representations, and I am glad that it is not involved.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You say that the Chair is not involved, but I distinctly heard a statement being made by a Minister to a Conservative Back Bencher, in the Chamber, requiring him to sit down. Many of us have decided over the past few months that this Government need firmer and more strenuous opposition, because it has come to our knowledge on a number of occasions that statements such as this are being made to Conservative Back Benchers and indirectly to my hon. Friends. We believe that it is for the Chair to intervene and give a ruling, arising from what has happened here today. It is important that, during our proceedings tonight, every hon. Member who wishes to speak is not prevented from speaking, and that clearly is a matter for the Chair. In the event—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. If he is referring to the amendments with which we are dealing, he can rise with the hope of catching the eye of the Chair. This matter is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order. The issue that I raised in my point of order does not necessarily relate to the amendment. It can equally relate to the proceedings of the House. I am saying that a Minister is in default of the procedures of the House by turning to his hon. Friend and requiring that he resumes his seat. This matter requires a ruling from the Chair. In the event that you feel that, in the circumstances, it is not possible for you to make a ruling, I ask that Mr. Speaker be asked to attend the House to rule, so that the position is clarified.
We have heard a Conservative Member being asked to take his seat during the course of a debate, when he had risen to speak on an amendment that he felt was sufficiently important, in so far as he is representing his


constituents, to warrant his intervention. I ask you to rule, not about anything that I may wish to say on an amendment, but on a procedural matter that I have raised —the question of the rights of Back Benchers to speak freely on the Floor of the House, and not be intimidated.

Mr. Durant: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, remind the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that Conservative Members do not need instructions from him on how to behave. We make our own decisions as to whether or not we shall speak, and we do not need to be instructed by him on that either. Therefore, I believe that this is not a point of order for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was sitting on the Treasury Bench when it is alleged that words were used by one of my hon. Friends. No one sitting on the Treasury Bench sought to give any advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant). If such advice had been given, my hon. Friend would probably have disregarded it. In so far as any advice was tendered to my hon. Friend, it was tendered by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). He sits on the same side of the House as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If I understand the feeling in the House, it would be to the advantage of all of us if we got on with the debate.

Mr. Durant: I rise to speak on behalf of my constituents, and that is what I am here to do. That is what Parliament is about. I do not need the hon. Member for Workington to tell me where my duty lies.
Before I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Workington, I said that I had not intended to raise this matter on this clause. As there has now been discussion about designation, I wish to make an important point for my constituents. I have studied the Bill carefully. On page 2, clause 1(4) says:
The Secretary of State may vary or revoke a designation under this section".
I understand that completely. He will publish that designation in the London Gazette, and that is provided for under clause 1(5)(a). On what terms will my hon. Friend the Minister decide the designation? Whose advice will he take and how might a new designation be introduced? A number of my constituents are at present in other houses which at this stage have not been designated, and they are concerned. There is no evidence that their houses are defective, but if defects become apparent they should like to know how they can be designated.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I have been informed that a clear undertaking was given to the citizens of Birmingham immediately prior to last year's general election. I wish to address my remarks in part to that undertaking and to ascertain to what extent the Government, having given that undertaking, are now required to be far more positive and forthcoming about the concessions which some may feel are being given in the Bill.
During the general election constituents throughout Birmingham were promised by their Conservative candidates that the Government would look favourably on the inclusion of Smith houses in any legislative changes.

Mr. Roger King: I had the honour to be a Conservative candidate in Birmingham during the general election, and I just wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is putting words in my mouth. I cannot recall making such a commitment, and I am not sure whether any of my colleagues did so. On what evidence does the hon. Gentleman base that assumption?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman says that as a candidate in Birmingham he did not make that statement. I hope that the Minister will not prevent him from speaking, because the hon. Gentleman has the same right to speak as the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant). I had to rise to my feet to exercise the rights of the hon. Member for Reading, West and to defend his interests—

Mr. Durant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I crave your indulgence as Deputy Speaker in charge of the Chamber. I do not seek to be defended by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I am perfectly capable of making my own case. When the hon. Gentleman interrupted me, I was already on my feet. It is, I believe, an effrontery to the House for the hon. Gentleman suddenly to take on the role of defending Back Benchers.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The only person who is stopping me from speaking is the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who is the only nobbler in this House.

Mr. Roger King: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Workington said that somehow I had been persuaded not to make a contribution in the debate. I was not persuaded in any form whatever and, therefore, resent his suggestion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will realise that hon. Members are raising points of argument in the guise of points of order. It would be very much better if hon. Members were to try to catch my eye and to make their contributions in debate.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) said that he was not persuaded. That is a curious construction of words, because it suggests that attempts were made to persuade him. That only confirms my point—that to some extent Conservative Members are being prevented from expressing their views—

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has again stated—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with a number of points of order. It would be very much better for our proceedings if we were now to have an orderly debate. There is plenty of time and I shall do my utmost to call any hon. Member who wishes to speak.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Northfield rises like a trout on the Tay after the fly. If he wishes to stay this evening, I shall present him with many flies which will be well laid, and I hope that he takes and bites them.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Reading, West. He knows that I would not wish to offend him. If I have, he must accept that what I said was in the spirit of our debate. I am sure that he knows precisely what I mean.
The hon. Member for Northfield is aware that during the general election certain statements were made, especially in the Northfield constituency. The information has come from many sources. Labour supporters who attended the election to help the Labour candidates spoke from public platforms and drew attention to the undertakings from Conservative candidates. I understand that it was believed that the Government would concede the case after the general election. I am informed that an inquiry was set up, investigations carried out and conclusions reached. That showed that there were defects.
The constituents of the hon. Member for Northfield want to know whether he believes that the Government are responding to those investigations in a reasonable manner and whether they accept that the properties should be designated in the Bill. I understand that the properties will not be designated, and some of us must, therefore, express reservations about that part of the Bill. Indeed, we feel strongly on this matter and may divide the House to express our concern about the Government's failure to make the necessary concessions.
Many local authorities and housing groups in the Birmingham area have expressed great dismay and displeasure at the news that the Government have not yet decided whether they will designate Smith houses, in this or any other Bill, as one of the groups that would qualify for the national scheme. It is more than a year since the Government accepted the need for an investigation into Smith houses. They did so under pressure not only from my hon. Friends but from Conservative Members. I am sure that the hon. Member for Northfield at that time, when it was more politically opportune, was vociferous in his support of designation. It appears that he is not so strenuous tonight in the interests of those who own Smith houses.
At that time we were told that the problem affected many people throughout the Birmingham area and in other parts of the United Kingdom. Many hon. Members said that there was all-party agreement when the Government announced at Easter 1983 that there would be an investigation by the Birmingham research unit—

Sir Reginald Eyre: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a national body, which has nothing to do with Birmingham—the Building Research Establishment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I thank him for correcting me. None of us is too proud to admit that on occasions we need correction. I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has successfully done would have been done by those writing the Official Report.
As I say, there was all-party agreement at Easter 1983 about the need for an investigation into a number of systems and that Smith houses should be added to the list. Up to then, it was not thought that Smith houses would be included. We on these Benches — I am sure that many Conservative Members felt the same — were disappointed with the report on Smith houses, which came out, significantly, a few weeks after the report on other types of system built houses, because it did not deal with Smith houses in the way that we had hoped.
Six months have elapsed. The Government have had sufficient time in which to reach a decision on the matter. Indeed, the people in places such as Birmingham—who believe that the Government owe them a decision in view of the promises that were made of the likelihood of a decision being made in their favour—feel that sufficient time has elapsed and that the Government should now reach a decision.
On Report, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) sought undertakings from the Government, but the Minister dodged the question. When pressed to say what would happen to Smith houses, he said that he was still considering whether they should be included in the mandatory scheme and added that he expected to reach a decision following a visit to Birmingham later in the year.
Time has passed, no decision has been forthcoming and we are still waiting for the Minister to make up his mind. There is still time for him to do that. It might be possible for him to introduce additional legislation.

Mr. Terry Davis: Additional legislation is not required. The Minister need only make an announcment. He announced the other types of houses to be designated either through a written answer or a press notice, and the information was made available to hon. Members. He could make a similar announcement tonight from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for clarifying the position. The people of Birmingham will be pleased to know that it is a simple matter for the Government to change the arrangements and ensure that their property is included. I think I see the Minister indicating that he wishes to intervene. I hope that he will make the concession which my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill is seeking.
Let us not forget that while the delay continues, people in Birmingham and elsewhere who bought these houses are living in a state of uncertainty about the future. The Government repeatedly refer to the importance of owner-occupation, claiming that it leads, among other things, to greater output and effort. I cannot believe that they wish to impede those who, having purchased these houses, want to improve them to ensure that any stigma that may attach to them is removed at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Gow: It may help the hon. Gentleman, and may even curtail his speech, if I say that I understand the anxiety expressed by him and by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). Alas, this is not an easy decision. If it had been, it would have been made earlier. However, the hon. Member for Hodge Hill has expressed deep anxiety about the matter and I can tell him that I shall be announcing a decision on Smith houses before the end of the month.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: We have been debating the matter for nearly an hour.

Mr. Terry Davis: The Minister said that he will make an announcement before the end of the month, which is five days away. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be better if the announcement were made in the House tonight, so that if that decision is not a favourable one the Minister could be cross-examined by Birmingham Members on both sides of the House? Our suspicions are


bound to be raised by the fact that the Minister says that he will not make a statement today, but wishes to make it in a nook-and-cranny way.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I had not been as suspicious as my hon. Friend of the Government's motives. However, my hon. Friend may be right in saying that the Government intend to make an announcement during the recess.

Mr. Gow: No.

Mr. Terry Davis: The Minister said that he will make the announcement before the end of the month and we have decided to rise on 1 August. Therefore, the decision will be announced before the recess, but I fear that the announcement will not be made in the Chamber which, in view of the pressure exerted by hon. Members, would be the most appropriate forum. If the decision were a favourable one, I imagine that the Minister would have curtailed the debate by making that favourable announcement tonight. His refusal to do so suggests that it will not be a favourable decision.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I was elected to the House only in 1979, but I have studied the work of the previous Labour Government and, although once in a while they strayed from the good way and published decisions in written answers, they came to accept that there was a need for oral statements on the Floor of the House in the name of open government. In the past few years, there has been a return to the bad old ways. Written answers are supposed to satisfy hon. Members. The Minister said that the reply would not be made during the recess and we must therefore assume that there will be a written answer on Tuesday. What good is that?

Mr. John Fraser: The House is discussing designation and the expenditure by a local authority of many millions of pounds which may not be subsidised by the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that we cannot be told the decision on 26 July but that we shall be told, in a nook-and-cranny way, by 31 July?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is right. It is extraordinary, but we all know what the decision is likely to be. If it were to be favourable to the people of Birmingham and other parts of the country, it would have been announced during the debate. It has taken us an hour to elicit from the Minister the statement that he is likely to give us a written answer on Tuesday next week. We shall have no opportunity to question him on that statement. It is an affront to our procedures.
If the House were sitting all next week hon. Members could raise points of order and object about an important statement being made in a written answer. They will be objecting to the fact that the Minister is issuing by means of a written reply a major statement which affects the lives of hundreds of people in Birmingham. Surely in our society, which values individual freedom and in which the rights of small groups of people must be fully protected, Ministers are big enough to stand at the Dispatch Box and to face the wrath of my hon. Friends, in the event that we had to object to the Government's decision. Perhaps, having heard my hon. Friends' comments today, the Minister will wish to reconsider his position. Perhaps in

the light of those comments he will feel it wiser to make the announcement today. If he does not do so, he must tell us why we are being required to wait for 120 or 130 hours for a statement which could just as well be made now.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) keeps tabling questions about the cost of answering parliamentary questions. No doubt a parliamentary question will be tabled next week in the name of the Minister's parliamentary private secretary. Or, indeed, the question may have been tabled already. If the Minister would tell us now that the houses are to be included, the expense of a question could be avoided and, furthermore, there would be no need for a Division. I am obliged to divide the House only because the Minister refuses to reply to my intervention.

Dr. Marek: Is it not possible that the Government are holding back the statement because they intend to designate perhaps only half or two-thirds of the houses, and they wish to avoid discussion here? It would be predominantly Labour authorities which would be torn between doing what was right for their citizens and making extra designations which they had to pay for, thus creating extra problems for themselves. Is it not possible that the Government relish the prospect of such developments in the latter part of the year, or am I being too cynical?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) is not known for his cynicism. He sees matters in a clear and straightforward way. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill, he does not address himself to the cynicism of the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill is wrong about the Government. We must live in hope.
Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the hon. Member for Northfield has been required to table the necessary parliamentary question which the Minister may answer next Tuesday. If he has, I hope that the burghers of Birmingham will be told that it was the Labour Members who pressed the Government on this matter and that when we asked the hon. Member for Northfield to put the case for this concession to be made for the hundreds of people who own such houses, he kept his seat.
After a curious visit from the Minister, who went to sit beside him, the hon. Member for Northfield kept his seat. The hon. Member must feel that he cannot defend the position of the Government. No doubt he will defend it publicly in the newspapers in Birmingham next week. The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends must remember that their constituents are among those who own these houses, which suffer from defects of all sorts. My hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill has referred to people with failing eyesight who have to cope with the problem of wavy floors. They have trouble focusing on the floors, which are wavy as a result of constructional defects. If the Minister gives a negative response next week, people with failing eyesight will have to continue to suffer from the problem of their wavy floors.
There are other people who are tied to their properties because they cannot sell them. I believe that there is no market for these properties until the Government intervene.

Mr. Terry Davis: The market is reduced.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: We all remember when, last year, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who


was then the Secretary of State for Employment, told us that people should get on their bicycles and go looking for work. We all know, however, that mobility of labour is dependent on housing mobility. We are merely asking the Government to respond to the demands of people, especially the unemployed, who want to move but cannot because of the Government's intransigence.
When the Minister replies to the debate next week in the form of a written answer, he should ponder over his pen about what he is doing for people who want to move. By refusing the change he will be telling them that they cannot move because the Government believe that the money should be spent on tax concessions for stud farmers. We all remember the stud farming debate of a few weeks ago. It was disgraceful that capital transfer tax concessions should be given to stud farmers. Throughout the Budget, tens of millions of pounds have been given away to minority interests, most of which are hardly represented in our constituencies.

Mr. Durant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if you would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with a Lords amendment. I urge you to bring him back to the subject.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for Workington will not wander into stud farms.

Mr. John Fraser: My hon. Friend would not be well served if he did.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Indeed. We are considering an amendment that is a most effective result of the activities of another place. I hope that the Minister will note the protests of my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill. I shall have to divide the House on this important issue. I shall do so with slight reservations, but the Minister, by answering in the form of a written reply, is abusing our procedures.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Last November the Minister made a statement naming 28 types of defective building. Many of us have problems with such buildings in our constituency. In my area, we have the Reema type. On that occasion we were able to question the Minister about the Building Research Establishment report and what the legislation would do to help. Surely the Minister should answer questions now if he was referring only to the Smith type of housing.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the Minister will make a statement today giving the Government's reasons for excluding that type of housing. Unusually, I was not present when the earlier statement was made, but I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill questioned the Minister about exclusions. Clearly he expected the Government to give way and grant his constituents that concession. What are the Government afraid of? Why will they not make the announcement today and thus avoid wasting time on Divisions simply to show the people of Birmingham and elsewhere how unsatisfactory the Government's attitude has been? We could avoid all that nonsense if the Minister would be more forthcoming. At the very least, will he assure us that a clear undertaking will be given in the written answer?

Mr. Terry Davis: It may not even be a written answer. It may be a press release.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In that case, the Minister had better tell us today exactly how he intends to make the statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Peter Bruinvels.

Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order to move, That the debate be now be adjourned?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I am not prepared to accept that motion. I have called Mr. Bruinvels. I shall, of course, call the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) if he wishes to participate in the debate in due course.

Mr. Bruinvels: I shall be brief as my hon. Friend the Minister has made it clear that there is to be a statement, no matter what its form, about the position of Smith homes. There are 500 such homes in Leicester, East. The problem is especially worrying on the Netherhall estate on which many of my constituents have bought their homes and are anxious to have reassurance and compensation as soon as possible.
Leicester has had many housing difficulties in the past few years. In the constituencies of my two colleagues, though not in my own, there have been considerable problems with Boot homes. My hon. Friend the Minister visited Leicester recently and saw at first hand the difficulties experienced by the owners of those homes. At that time, however, the problems of the Smith homes had not yet come to light. Perhaps on his next visit my hon. Friend the Minister will come and see some of those homes, too.
The Lords amendment is clearly welcome for people with homes of other types, but I very much hope that the Smith houses will be designated under clause 1 at an early date. There is concern throughout the country that those homes have not yet been included. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister cares passionately about this problem. Unlike the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), I do not care how my hon. Friend announces this help and hope so long as he makes the announcement.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bruinvels: We should be grateful that there is to be an announcement by the end of July.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way!

Mr. Bruinvels: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) explained carefully what was going on.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It seems clear to me that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) is not giving way, at any rate at this moment.

Mr. Bruinvels: My hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green carefully and succinctly explained the difficulties experienced in Birmingham. I hope that in my short speech I have been able to put forward the concern that is felt by hon. Members and by the people living in Leicester, East who desperately need help. They should not be penalised in any way for having opted to buy their


homes or, indeed, blamed if they have not bought their homes. I know that the Bill as amended by the Lords amendments will be acceptable to my constituents, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to include Smith homes in clause 1.

Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned. I do so because of the quite extraordinary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by saying that I am not prepared to accept the motion. If he wishes to intervene in the debate, I will of course be prepared to call him.

Mr. Fraser: Of course I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This seemed to be a comparatively uncontroversial set of amendments until the intervention of the Minister a few moments ago informing us that he will be making an announcement about the designation of Smith houses before the end of the month. We are at the tail end of a Session and at the tail end of a Bill. We are concerned about the designation of a number of houses in Birmingham that are defective as a result of the use of shale in them and the coming apart of the walls. There is no political or party point in this matter. Concern has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about these homes. It seems extraordinary to have an announcement from the Minister that he will say something about the designation of Smith homes by 31 July when the House is sitting on the evening of 26 July. That seems to be holding the House in contempt, not in the technical sense of the word, but by dealing with second class houses in the way that some other people deal in second hand cars. That is not good enough.
There is an essential difference between the designation of houses under clause 1 and the designaion of houses under clause 10. If they are designated under clause 1, the local authority—in this case Birmingham,—will receive subsidy at the rate of 75 per cent. of the loan costs if the houses are repurchased by the local authority, or at the rate of 90 per cent. of the servicing costs of the reinstatement grant.
If the Minister decides that designation will be left to Birmingham council under clause 10, no subsidy will be attracted to Birmingham as a result of that designation made by that local authority. In an area that has considerable housing problems with substantial incursions into its housing investment programme, this is a matter of importance. Millions of pounds are involved in capital expenditure, and hundreds of thousands of pounds are involved in subsidy.
It seems to be holding the House in contempt not to be able to make an announcement tonight about Smith houses rather than wait at the latest until Tuesday 31 July. This is not a new matter. As I understand it, a delegation of Members of both parties went to see the Department of the Environment about these matters prior to the last election, and the expectation was created in Birmingham and in Northfield that Smith houses would be designated. It is true that the Minister has referred Smith houses to the Building Research Establishment. The report has come back from the establishment.
All the evidence is before the Minister to enable him to make the announcement tonight. I ask him to think

again. I am sure—at least I hope—that he intended no discourtesy to the House in saying that he would be making an announcement before the end of the month. We are perfectly prepared to accommodate him by agreeing to adjourn proceedings for a short time so that he may consult his colleagues. He can make a telephone call. He has a number of telephone conversations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seems to be directing a large part of housing policy. It would be possible to make arrangements to contact other hon. Members in the Department and to make an announcement to the House before the end of these proceedings.
It is important for the Minister to tell the House about Smith houses and designation in general because people are waiting with bated breath to know when the Bill will bite. The Bill cannot come into force until the commencement order is made, and even then it will have no effect until designation. The designation triggers the procedure for operating a purchase notice.
We do not know when designation will take place. It is important for people who want to move, perhaps from one part of the country to another, to be certain about when the Bill's provisions will be operated, particularly since the Minister has already announced that 26 classes of dwelling will be designated in due course.
The time of designation is also important to local authorities because the moment that designation occurs there will be an incursion into their housing investment programmes for the current year. They are already under severe constraint as a result of the announcement made on 18 July.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does my hon. Friend recall the comments of our former hon. Friend who represented Birmingham, Northfield—Mr. Speller—who repeatedly drew attention to the problem in the Birmingham area? Should not a tribute be paid to Mr. Speller for the work that he did? I hope that the present hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) will join us in the Lobby to express his support for what we are doing.

Mr. Fraser: I pay tribute to Mr. Speller, who was a good and valued colleague in the House. I do not know what his successor will do, but I hope that we shall go through the Lobby together in support of the Bill which we want put on the statute book. The hon. Gentleman could serve his constituents, and follow the tradition established by Mr. Speller, by pressing the Minister to make an announcement in the House tonight rather than making it in some other way before 31 July. If the hon. Gentleman cares for his constituents and has the same integrity as his predecessor, he will leap to his feet and demand that an announcement be made tonight rather than next week.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) said that the Bill will provide relief for people who purchase their council houses, but that it continues the inequity of giving no rights to those who remain tenants of local authority housing. The problems of local authority tenants will be made worse as a result of the announcement on 18 July.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham said that he supported the sale of council houses when funds can be reinvested. We are told that capital receipts from the sale of council houses will be put into new housing. On 18 July local authorities which accumulated capital receipts before


the financial years 1981, 1982 and 1983 were told that they were debarred from doing that. The electors and local authorities have been defrauded.
I urge the Minister to reconsider his decision, unlock money in local authority coffers and make an announcement about Smith houses which have caused so much concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

9 pm

Mr. Gow: I hasten to reply to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). I hope that I do not need to assure the hon. Gentleman or the House that I would never knowingly or willingly commit any discourtesy to the House.
I made an announcement a short while ago about a decision whether to designate Smith houses under clause 1. The decision is not straightforward, because it can only be taken formally after—indeed, I may add, if—the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Mr. John Fraser: That is synthetic.

Mr. Gow: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will listen to me.
My right hon. Friend announced in a written answer the names of the 28 types of house that he has decided to designate under clause 1, if the Bill receives Royal Assent. The reason that I cannot tell the House tonight what my right hon. Friend's decision will be is that my right hon. Friend and I have not yet made a decision. A decision will be made and announced before the end of the month after I have had a meeting with my advisers on Monday next, at which a final decision will be taken about the matter. A decision will be announced to the House in the same way in which we announced previously the 28 types of designated houses.
At the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Sir R. Eyre) I visited Birmingham and looked at several Smith houses in his constituency, and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King), and for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan). I mean no discourtesy to the House, Mr. Speaker. An announcement will be made before the end of the month. My right hon. Friend and I will be accountable to the House for our decision.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 6.

Division No. 437]
[9.02 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Body, Richard


Amess, David
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Ancram, Michael
Bottomley, Peter


Arnold, Tom
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Ashby, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Aspinwall, Jack
Braine, Sir Bernard


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brinton, Tim


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Browne, John


Baldry, Tony
Bruinvels, Peter


Barron, Kevin
Burt, Alistair


Batiste, Spencer
Butterfill, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Cash, William


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chapman, Sydney


Bidwell, Sydney
Chope, Christopher


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)





Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Needham, Richard


Conway, Derek
Nellist, David


Coombs, Simon
Newton, Tony


Cope, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Craigen, J. M.
Norris, Steven


Crouch, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Osborn, Sir John


Dixon, Donald
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Dover, Den
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Durant, Tony
Pike, Peter


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Emery, Sir Peter
Powley, John


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Price, Sir David


Evennett, David
Proctor, K. Harvey


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Raffan, Keith


Fallon, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Fookes, Miss Janet
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Forman, Nigel
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fox, Marcus
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Freeman, Roger
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Gale, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion


Goodlad, Alastair
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Gorst, John
Rowe, Andrew


Gow, Ian
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Greenway, Harry
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Harvey, Robert
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hayes, J.
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Heddle, John
Skinner, Dennis


Heffer, Eric S.
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Henderson, Barry
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Howard, Michael
Speed, Keith


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Spencer, Derek


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Hunter, Andrew
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Stern, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Kilfedder, James A.
Stradling Thomas, J.


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Sumberg, David


King, Rt Hon Tom
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lawrence, Ivan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lester, Jim
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lilley, Peter
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Thorne, Neil (IIford S)


Lord, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Luce, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Lyell, Nicholas
Trippier, David


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Twinn, Dr Ian


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Waddington, David


Maclean, David John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Madden, Max
Walden, George


Major, John
Waller, Gary


Marland, Paul
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Mather, Carol
Watson, John


Maude, Hon Francis
Watts, John


Merchant, Piers
Whitfield, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Wood, Timothy


Montgomery, Fergus
Yeo, Tim


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)



Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Michael Neubert.


Murphy, Christopher





NOES


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Wareing, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale



Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Tellers for the Noes:


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Mr. Tony Lloyd and Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.


Marek, Dr John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Were the consequential amendments taken with Lords amendment No. 1?

Mr. Speaker: They will be taken when they are reached. There were no consequential amendments to Lords amendment No. 1. There are no amendments grouped with the Lords amendments; they will all be taken later individually in due course.

Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At one point I asked whether I could move, That the debate be now adjourned. That was ruled out of order by Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I understand and accept his ruling.
During the course of the last Division, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) tabled a question asking the Minister to make a statement to my hon. Friend before the end of the month about the designation of Smith houses. Would it be in order for the Minister for Housing and Construction to give the House an undertaking tonight that he will answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill and not make an announcement to the House in any other way?

Mr. Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I repeat to the House and to the hon. Gentleman the assurance that I gave earlier, and I repeat in exactly the form for which the hon. Gentleman asked the assurance that he seeks.

Clause 2

ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 25, at end insert
(3A) A person who holds a relevant interest in a defective dwelling is not eligible for assistance in respect of the dwelling at any time when that interest is subject to the rights of a person who is a protected occupier within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 or a statutory tenant within the meaning of that Act.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 25.

Mr. Roberts: The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the provisions of the Bill do not conflict with the rights that might currently be enjoyed by some agricultural workers occupying tied accommodation. It is possible that some protected occupancies or statutory tenancies covered by the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 are PRC dwellings that fall within the categories that the Bill designates for assistance. For example, it is possible that a farmer could have acquired a surplus Ministry of Defence house to provide accommodation for an employee. If such dwellings fall to be repurchased by the housing authority under the terms of the Bill as unamended, the protection offered to those agricultural workers by the 1976 Act would be lost. The authority would, of course, be obliged to offer the tenants secure tenancies, but on terms that are likely to be less advantageous than those which they enjoy at present. That is especially true of the increased rent that they might have

to pay, which might not be matched by an increase in wages, and there could be further complications in the terms of employment.
It is also necessary to consider who is to benefit from the assistance offered by the Bill. Hon. Members will know that the Bill is aimed essentially at the owner-occupier, yet a farmer who has used a PRC dwelling to provide tied accommodation has done so for the purposes of his business. The amendments provide that owners of dwellings which are subject to the provisions of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 should not be eligible for assistance under the Bill. It would be possible for farmers, acting as individuals, to obtain assistance under the Bill in respect of such dwellings by first obtaining vacant possession of the dwellings, for example, by coming to an arrangement with the agricultural worker or by providing alternative accommodation. We believe that that is a sensible arrangement in complicated circumstances.

Mr. John Fraser: As there are time limits on when notices are served, can the Minister confirm that the effect of the amendments — which I understand are for the benefit of agricultural workers who may pay no rent or low rents—is to suspend the right to resell the house or to have a reinstatement grant while there is an agricultural tenancy, and that the right will not be lost because of the time limit?

Mr. Roberts: I think that the hon. Gentleman's understanding is correct. If he studies my remarks he will find that I have set out the circumstances in which an owner can gain assistance under the Bill. That implies that the right to obtain such assistance persists, but is simply in abeyance while the tenant occupies the dwelling.

Mr. Speaker: In answer to what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said earlier — I may have misunderstood him—all the Lords amendments stand on their own, but some of them are grouped. Of course, they may all be divided upon when we reach them. Does that clarify the point?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you clarify the position? I am trying to discover whether we have the right to deal with the amendments individually in terms of the vote.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but not in terms of debate. With Lords amendment No. 2 we are taking Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 25.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 7.

Division No.438]
[9.22 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Arnold, Tom
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Ashby, David
Braine, Sir Bernard


Aspinwall, Jack
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Brinton, Tim


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Browne, John


Baldry, Tony
Bruinvels, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Burt, Alistair


Berry, Sir Anthony
Butterfill, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cash, William


Body, Richard
Chapman, Sydney






Chope, Christopher
Needham, Richard


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Neubert, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Newton, Tony


Colvin, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Conway, Derek
Norris, Steven


Coombs, Simon
Oppenheim, Phillip


Cope, John
Osborn, Sir John


Crouch, David
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Dorrell, Stephen
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Powley, John


Dover, Den
Price, Sir David


Durant, Tony
Proctor, K. Harvey


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Raffan, Keith


Evennett, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fallon, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Fox, Marcus
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gale, Roger
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Goodlad, Alastair
Rowe, Andrew


Gorst, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Gow, Ian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Greenway, Harry
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Harvey, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hayes, J.
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Heddle, John
Spencer, Derek


Henderson, Barry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Howard, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Stern, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Hunter, Andrew
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Jessel, Toby
Stradling Thomas, J.


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Kilfedder, James A.
Temple-Morris, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lawrence, Ivan
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Lester, Jim
Thorne, Neil (IIford S)


Lilley, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Tracey, Richard


Lord, Michael
Trippier, David


Luce, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lyell, Nicholas
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Waddington, David


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Walden, George


Maclean, David John
Waller, Gary


Marland, Paul
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Mather, Carol
Watson, John


Maude, Hon Francis
Watts, John


Merchant, Piers
Whitfield, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wolfson, Mark


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Wood, Timothy


Moate, Roger
Yeo, Tim


Montgomery, Fergus



Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Mr. John Major and Mr. Ian Lang.


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)



Murphy, Christopher





NOES


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Wareing, Robert


Dixon, Donald



Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Tellers for the Noes:


Madden, Max
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and Dr. John Marek.


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)



Skinner, Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3

ENTITLEMENT TO REINSTATEMENT GRANT OR REPURCHASE

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 4, line 42, after "below" insert
and section [modification of Act in relation to shared ownership leases](3) of this Act".

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 46.

Mr. Roberts: The main provision in this group is the new clause to be inserted after clause 16. It gives the Secretary of State the power to modify the provisions of the Bill to fit the complicated case of a defective dwelling that is held on a shared ownership lease by the owner, or where the freehold of the dwelling has been acquired by means of such a lease.
The typical shared ownership scheme allows the purchase of an initial share followed by the purchase of additional shares at any time in the future if the owner so wishes. Prices for both initial and subsequent shares are usually fixed in relation to the market value of the dwelling at the time of the acquisition of the share.
We do not know whether any precast reinforced concrete dwellings are subject to shared ownership leases. We think that the number of such cases, if any, is very small. But it is possible in such cases either that the owner holds only part of the equity or that, even if he has already acquired the whole of it, the acquisition of shares will straddle the cut-off date—that is the date by which the existence of the defects became generally known. and the value of the dwelling fell considerably. Some shares may have been bought at a defect-free value before the defects became known, while others may have been bought at a defective value after the cut-off date.
It is not difficult to imagine the complications that would arise in administering the scheme if reinstatement grant were to be the appropriate form of assistance. The new clause provides that the regulations may confine the assistance to repurchase, as in the case of a flat.
The Bill's provisions will need to be adapted—for example, for the case where some shares might have been purchased at defective value. Rather than add considerably to the length of the Bill to cater for those few, if any, cases, we propose that the Secretary of State should be given the power, subject to negative resolution, to make the modifications as and when it is clear that they are needed.
The new clause does not apply to Scotland as the concept of shared ownership leases as found in England and Wales has no equivalent in Scottish law. I hope that the House will agree that it is a practical solution to the problem of shared ownership leases.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Under clause 3, a person seeking help from the local authority for a substandard dwelling—which is defined in the Bill as "defective"—must make written application to the local housing authority. If the applicant is eligible—the Bill also deals with eligibility and the criteria governing it — the housing authority then determines, in accordance with conditions laid down in the clause, whether the applicant is entitled to reinstatement grant or repurchase.
The work required to be done to reinstate a defective dwelling is defined, and the clause makes provision for


cases where an eligible person dies or disposes of the property for other than the value of that person's interest in the dwelling.
The Lords amendments would extend the right to assistance to shared ownership leases or freeholds acquired under the terms of a shared ownership lease. Amendment No. 46 sets out the modifications that may be specified in regulations under the Bill.
May we be given examples of such shared ownership leases? The Minister was not specific on that and, when we debated an earlier amendment, he did not identify shared ownership lease schemes. Such schemes exist and the House is entitled to know where they exist, the number of dwellings involved, the cost to the Exchequer of extending the arrangements to those leases and the extent to which the beneficiary may not be the lessee.
The freeholder may have embodied in the lease granted to the lessee a restriction which may turn in the freeholder's favour in the event of further legislation or perhaps as the result of default by the tenant. In other words, the beneficiary in such a case might not be the lessee, although it is intended that the lessee should be the beneficiary under the Bill.
We need to be assured that abuses cannot take place and that freeholders will not be advantaged. I recall cases in Manchester over improvement grants. I appreciate that this provision is not concerned with those grants, but we must draw parallel examples in considering what might happen under the Bill.
A television programme was made about the position in Manchester. The district council allocated improvement grants on the basis of a five-year condition. In the cases I have in mind, landlords who obtained improvement grants and who would have lost them had they sold the property within five years insisted on people who bought their property not receiving the title to that property until the expiry of the five-year period. By that means, landlords did not have to repay to Manchester corporation the improvement grants that they had been given. That is an example of how an agreement can militate against the interests of the person who is intended to be the beneficiary.
I hope that the Government will assure us that there is no possibility of abuse in the extension of the right to shared ownership leases. I hope that no financial benefit will be provided for those for whom the legislation is not intended. If the Government cannot give us an absolute assurance, I shall divide the House on the amendment.
We are always told that it is in our interests to protect the public purse. The Government tell us repeatedly that it is their objective to secure the interests of the taxpayer. They tell us on Finance Bill Committees, "We need the money." All grants cost local authorities or the Government money. I am representing the interests of the taxpayer in seeking an assurance from the Government.

Dr. Marek: There are many good parts of the Bill, but it does not go far enough and there may be some inconsistencies. Amendment No. 2 sought to ensure that benefits that could otherwise accrue to, say, farmers who bought a house for their business would not accrue to them. However, it seems that we are now doing the opposite. Amendment No. 46 says:

The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for this Act to have effect, in its application to any case in which a person is eligible for assistance in respect of a defective dwelling and his interest in the dwelling is either—

(a) a shared ownership lease, or
(b) the freehold acquired under the terms of a shared ownership lease"
If there is a shared ownership lease, one person may be an absentee dweller, perhaps living in the south of France. It is possible that both owners will be absentee dwellers, seeking only to make a quick killing. They could use the Bill for their own advantage and subsequently sell the property.
Some properties would be difficult to sell, but some may be in the middle of Wales or the Lake District. In those areas, it is essential that owners live in their houses and contribute to the well-being of the community. The house may be in a time-sharing scheme. There are such schemes in Scotland and I should like the Minister to tell us what is the difference between shared ownership and time-sharing. The thrust of these amendments seems to be in be opposite direction from that of amendment No. 2 and the associated amendments.
There is another reason why I am unhappy about the amendments. Amendment No. 46 states that:
the Secretary of State may by regulations provide for this Act to have effect.
He may, or he may not. As a matter of principle, I do not like legislation of that type. I would far rather—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am having trouble in hearing my hon. Friend because of the noise from the Government Benches. If hon. Gentlemen wish to discuss matters during the debate, should they not leave the Chamber so that we can discuss the Bill quietly?

Mr. Speaker: I am having no difficulty in hearing what the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) is saying, and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is much closer to him than I am.

Dr. Marek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The new clause is permissive. It states that the Secretary of State may make regulations. It would be far better that regulations or orders should be made by the House, so that we would know what they provided and what their effects would be. We do not even know what would be done by means of the regulations. I would not be inclined to support an amendment such as amendment No. 46 unless there were strong arguments in its favour. In this case there are not, and I shall support my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

Mr. Don Dixon: If the shared ownership is shared with the local authority, does my hon. Friend know whether the local authority will receive any assistance in connection with its share in the defective dwelling?

Dr. Marek: That is an important point. The local authorities could be placed in an invidious position.
It is not good enough for us to be told that regulations may be made. I hope that the Minister will withdraw the clause—or perhaps the whole Bill—for reconsideration. Parts of the Bill are valuable, but a Bill should be exactly right before it becomes law, and we should ensure that every dot and comma is in the right place.
Amendment No. 46 leaves a very wide field open to ministerial diktat. During my first year in the House, I have been struck by the fact that in more and more legislation matters are left for the Minister to decide. That is fundamentally wrong. The House should keep control over legislation, and we are not doing so in this case.
My third point is about shared ownership and the problems that could be involved in certain areas. I do not envisage that there would be any great problems in the centre of Birmingham, Sheffield or Rotherham, but there could be problems in the Lake District, or north or central Wales.

Mr. Tom Pendry: Or Stalybridge.

Dr. Marek: Stalybridge would certainly come into the category. There would be a danger that houses might become owned on a time-share basis, or that people would be able to take advantage of the legislation by having houses done up and then letting them. That would be against the spirit of the Bill. The Bill is not designed to enable people to carry on a business, or to set up in business. It is important that, in rural areas, every house should be occupied all the year round and as the only residence of a family. I am not convinced that the Bill will ensure that. Far too many houses in desirable areas have fallen victim to becoming holiday homes. Lords amendment No. 46—by the suggested subsection (5)—provides:
Regulations under this section may make different provision for England and Wales and for different descriptions of shared ownership lease.
I hope that it stops the activity that I have described but I do not believe that it will. Moreover, I fail to see why provision for England and Wales should be different from that in Scotland. The basic problem of home ownership is the same in England, Wales and Scotland. Lords amendment No. 46—by the suggested subsection (6)—provides:
This section does not apply to Scotland.
The Minister said that the reason for that is that shared ownership is not known in Scotland—but it might be in future, in spite of the fact that the legal niceties of tied ownership are different from shared ownership. The Act would have to be revised to take account of such a change but I do not envisage a Government in, say, 1992 presenting a one-clause Bill to amend the Act because of a mistake in 1984 and because Scotland must now be included because things have changed. The mark of a good legislator must be anticipation of what is likely to happen and providing for it.
I hope that the Government will think again. Perhaps the Government will think again. Perhaps the Minister will be able to assure me that there will be no increase in the number of holiday homes in desirable rural areas. What regulations does he have it in mind to make? Presumably the Government are not merely providing that they can make regulations without having thought the matter through. They must have an eye to what the regulations will be. That being so, who will the regulations include? It must be right for the House to know that, even if we cannot see the Government's intentions in print. If I do not receive assurances, it will be my duty to vote against Lords amendment No. 3. However, I am anxious to discover whether the Minister can give those assurances.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: As I said in moving the amendment, we do not know whether any PRC dwellings are subject to shared ownership leases, so I cannot give the details of location requested by the Opposition, but we have covered the eventuality. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) confessed that he did not like the regulations. As I have said, the aim is simply to cover a most unlikely eventuality. Moreover, the regulations can be prayed against in either House.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 8.

Division No. 439]
[9.55 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Amess, David
Hunter, Andrew


Ancram, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Ashby, David
Jessel, Toby


Aspinwall, Jack
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Kilfedder, James A.


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Lawrence, Ivan


Baldry, Tony
Lester, Jim


Batiste, Spencer
Lilley, Peter


Berry, Sir Anthony
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Lord, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Luce, Richard


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Lyell, Nicholas


Boscawen, Hon Robert
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Bottomley, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Maclean, David John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Major, John


Bright, Graham
Maples, John


Brinton, Tim
Marland, Paul


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Mather, Carol


Browne, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Bruinvels, Peter
Merchant, Piers


Burt, Alistair
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Butterfill, John
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Montgomery, Fergus


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Cash, William
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Chapman, Sydney
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Chope, Christopher
Murphy, Christopher


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Neubert, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Nicholls, Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Norris, Steven


Conway, Derek
Oppenheim, Phillip


Coombs, Simon
Osborn, Sir John


Cope, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Crouch, David
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Dorrell, Stephen
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Powley, John


Dover, Den
Proctor, K. Harvey


Durant, Tony
Raffan, Keith


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Evennett, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Fallon, Michael
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Roe, Mrs Marion


Fox, Marcus
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Gale, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Goodlad, Alastair
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Gorst, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gow, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Greenway, Harry
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Harvey, Robert
Spencer, Derek


Hayes, J.
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Heddle, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Henderson, Barry
Stern, Michael


Howard, Michael
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)






Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Waller, Gary


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watson, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Watts, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thorne, Neil (IIford S)
Whitfield, John


Thurnham, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Tracey, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian
Yeo, Tim


van Straubenzee, Sir W.



Waddington, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mr. Douglas Hogg and Mr. Ian Lang.


Walden, George





NOES


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Skinner, Dennis


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Wareing, Robert


Cohen, Harry



Corbyn, Jeremy
Tellers for the Noes:


Dixon, Donald
Dr. John Marek and Mr. Dave Nellist.


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords amendments stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of Lords Amendments to the Housing Defects Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Housing Defects Bill

Lords amendments again considered.

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (6).

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 7, 9, 10, 52, 53 and 56 to 62.

Mr. Ancram: I hope that the House will welcome the amendments, which relate to the mortgage ability of defective dwellings after reinstatement work has been carried out and to the issue of warranties to guarantee repairs. The issues are being discussed by officials with the National House Building Council and the Building Societies Association.
The purpose of the amendments is to allow reinstatement grants under the Bill to be paid in respect of payments of insurance premiums for warranties on reinstatement works. Such warranties may often make it easier for building societies to lend with confidence on repaired PRC dwellings. It would be unfortunate if grants could not be paid in respect of premiums because of the wording of the Bill.

Mr. John Fraser: I welcome the amendments. If my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) presses them to a Division, I shall vote for them because I have urged that they be made. My colleagues in the House of Lords tabled the amendments which proved acceptable to the Government.
I am keen that there should be a guarantee for reinstated premises because houses will be made more mortgageable. If houses which have been defective are more mortgageable owners will be able to dispose of them on the private market and not have to exercise their right to sell them back to the local authority. That means that more

money will be left for housing investment programmes to provide houses to let, improvement grants and other housing assistance. That is better than local authorities having to buy houses back simply because there is no guarantee and they are not mortgageable to lending institutions such as building societies.
I have a question about housing investment programmes. The Government have said that the cost of reinstatement grants and repurchase will be taken into account when allocating housing investment programmes in the current year and the next year.
I shall deal just with next year. The Government say that the cost of reinstatement grants and repurchase will be taken into account. We do not know exactly how heavy will be the demand for reinstatement grants and repurchase next year. The estimate of total capital expenditure under the Bill is £250 million, and it would not be out of the way to guess that the figure will be £50 million next year.
We want to know the answer to this question. When the Government say that the cost of reinstatement and repurchase will be taken into account, does that mean that housing investment programme allocations for next year will be augmented by the cost of the Bill? If the £250 estimate were not added to housing investment programme for the following year, it would mean a deduction from other forms of housing investment.
I ask the Minister, therefore, to take this last opportunity to clarify what he means, and to undertake and assure the House that there will be additional allocations to meet the cost of the legislation. Can he say that the cost of the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will not be deducted from other forms of public expenditure on housing?

Mr. Durant: I speak on this amendment because, like the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), I have been pressing for this change throughout the Bill's passage. I raised the matter on Second Reading, and on Report, and I raise it now. I am delighted that the Government have acceded to our request. The Lords amendment goes a long way in the direction that I wanted on the question of warranties.
I shall be interested to know how the discussions with the building societies are progressing. When will the outcome become apparent and will the discussions reach a conclusion before the Bill starts to take effect in, say, two months? It would be unfortunate if the Act were introduced, but the question of warranties was not settled with the building societies.
Many of my constituents will have their houses repaired. They will wish to move not immediately, but in a few years. Life will have moved on and there will be little evidence in the town hall that their properties have been repaired. A warranty will be the only document that my constituents will have with which to convince a would-be purchaser that their property had been put in good order. The warranty is very important,
The hon. Member for Norwood has dealt with the problem of HIP allocations and the money to be spent under the Bill. I should like to know the financial position for local authorities which have brought back houses from my constituents on compassionate grounds such as the need to move after obtaining a job elsewhere with approval from the Department. The decisions were taken before the Bill became an Act. My local authority is concerned


because it has given approval for about eight houses to be bought back before the Bill becomes an Act, and it is worried about its financial position.
To recap, will the warranties be effective and the discussions completed before the Act comes into force? I welcome the trend towards warranties. Secondly what is the financial position of local authorities which have bought back houses on compassionate grounds through the Department and with its approval?

Mr. Madden: I do not wish to detain the House, but I must agree with the closing remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) about assistance to local authorities for implementing the main provisions of the Bill.
We know that the Bill's main objectives are to provide those who have bought defective council houses with a 90 per cent. grant to repair them or to entitle them to sell them back to the local authority without loss. We also know that local authorities own 90 per cent. of the properties that are deemed to be defective. At present, they will get no extra help with their obligations under the Bill. That is a considerable problem which faces several local authorities throughout the country. During the debate we have heard about the extent of that problem.
10.15 pm
Before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we were treated to a most unusual sequence of events. I think that it is true to say that the Minister for Housing and Construction, after intense pressure, was persuaded to explain reluctantly that he intends to make an announcement on Tuesday, in reply to a written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), about the Government's views on the designation of Smith houses. We welcome that, but we do not welcome the time that it took to wring that assurance from the Minister. I hope that he will be more forthcoming now about what help local authorities will be given to meet the obligations under the Bill.
I have been contacted by my local authority in Bradford, which is extremely concerned about the considerable financial consequences facing the council under the provisions of the Bill because of the extent of designated defective housing in the city of Bradford. Therefore, I am responding to the request made by the council. I remind the Minister, in case he has forgotten, that Bradford city council has a Conservative group, which is in power with the assistance of Liberals and Social Democrats. Those people have expressed their considerable concern about the financial consequences of the legislation, and have asked me to seek a reply from the Government to this question. What assistance will they be given towards meeting the costs which will flow from the Bill of remedying defective houses and buying houses back from tenants who wish to sell them?
Earlier in the debate I asked the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible for local government in Scotland what powers local authorities have to make ex gratia payments to those who are either tenants or owners of defective buildings. If they receive ex gratia grants, that will enable them to remedy the defects in the houses that they occupy either as tenants or owners. The Minister said that he would make inquiries for me and write to me. Subsequent events have persuaded me to say that that assurance is not good enough. I would appreciate information tonight about what powers local authorities

have to make ex gratia payments in line with the designated powers that will be given to them when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
There are several officials in the Box. A galaxy of talent and advice is readily available to Ministers. We heard from the Minister for Housing and Construction that he intends to meet his Ministers on Monday to discuss whether Smith houses will be designated. I shoud have thought that during the many Divisions that we have had this evening it would have been possible for the Minister to consult his officials in the Box, and we could have had a decision—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not in order to keep referring to people outside the Chamber.

Mr. Madden: I am guided by your remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but all of us who have been in the Chamber throughout the evening have been dazzled by the traffic between the Front Bench and the Box, to which I am not supposed to refer. Clearly advice has been streaming to Ministers on the many points made tonight.
I emphasise that I should like tonight to have information from the Minister as to whether it is possible for local authorities to make ex gratia payments to those who are either tenants or owners of defective buildings, designated under the provisions of the Bill, before the Bill is given Royal Assent and implemented.
I was told several weeks ago by officials of the Department of the Environment—who at that time were in Marsham street rather than in the Box to which I am not supposed to refer — that it was possible for local authorities to make ex gratia grants. I should like to have either confirmation or a denial by the Minister in replying to the debate.
Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) asked what help local authorities, such as mine in Bradford, are to be given to meet the considerable bill that they will have to meet if the Bill is given Royal Assent. Like many other inner city areas, Bradford is facing acute housing deprivation. We had a debate last evening about public expenditure on housing, and the Minister for Housing and Construction is well aware of the considerable anxiety about the housing crisis. We know that 1¼ million houses in England and Wales are unfit for habitation, and that there are 2½ million houses in the United Kingdom which are seriously affected by dampness.

Mr. Durant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you will guide me. I am trying to follow the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). Is what he is saying relevant to the amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am listening very carefully. The Chair will rule if it thinks that any hon. Member is out of order.

Mr. Madden: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you are clearly aware, I was seeking to highlight the exceptionally heavy financial burden facing local authorities in seeking to remedy the problems arising in the large number of properties throughout England and Wales which are unfit, and the large number of properties throughout the United Kingdom which are suffering from dampness. It has been estimated that at least 10,000 million is needed to remedy the construction and design


defects of existing council houses, quite apart from the considerable bill facing local authorities as a result of the legislation.
I am asking tonight for answers to two simple questions. First, what help will be given to local authorities such as my own in Bradford in meeting the considerable financial consequences of remedying the defects to properties?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I have been listening closely to my hon. Friend's points about Bradford's problems. He says that Bradford is run by the Tories, with assistance from the Liberals or Dr. Death's party. I cannot understand why Liberal and SDP Members—there is only one of them present in the Chamber—are not making those representations. I should have thought that those live wires, as they call themselves, would be here. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that he is doing a proper job in bailing them out? It is a difficulty.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was a rather long intervention. If the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) follows that line, he will be getting very wide of the amendment.

Mr. Madden: I greatly appreciate your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) reminds me that last night, when we were discussing public expenditure in housing, the Minister for Housing and Construction was moved, in his closing remarks, to remind all of us that there was not one Liberal or Social Democrat Member in the Chamber throughout the duration of the debate. That debate related solely to the housing crisis, the wholly inadequate investment programme of the Government and the wholly inadequate priority which they give to housing and to improving the disastrous record that I have tried to highlight.
As I said, I want the answers to two simple questions. First, how much additional help will be given to local authorities such as Bradford council to deal with the significant financial consequencies of this legislation? Secondly—I am glad that the Minister responsible for local government in Scotland has returned to the Front Bench, and I hope that he can now answer my intervention of about three hours ago—what powers are there for local authorities such as Bradford council to make ex gratia grants to tenants and owner-occupiers who live in defective properties as designated in the legislation? I would appreciate replies tonight.

Mr. Christopher Chope: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) in seeking further clarification of the discussions with the National House Building Council and the Building Societies Association. The amendment is welcome because it goes to the root of the problem which the Bill seeks to address—the mortgageability of such houses. If the discussions with the NHBC and the Building Societies Association are unsuccessful, councils will be lumbered with substantal expenditure in repurchasing houses that might otherwise be subject to reinstatement grants. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will also comment on the attitude of Southampton city council, which so far has made no application in its housing investment programme bid for 1985–86 in respect of

possible liability under the Bill, and say whether it is the right attitude to adopt at this stage. Councils will have different views depending upon whether it is possible to make arrangements with the Building Societies Association.
In another place on 24 July my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale could say only that he hoped that the amendments would be helpful,
if it proves possible to make such arrangements"— [Official Report, House of Lords; 24 July 1984; Vol. 455, c. 247.]
with the Building Societies Association. I understand that the discussions have continued for some time, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can go a little further tonight and tell the House what stage the discussions have reached, their exact nature, whether it is likely that a standard scheme of reinstatement for Reema houses will be agreed with the building societies, or what other possibilities are emerging from the discussions.
It is crucial that, as soon as the Bill becomes law, those who occupy houses that are to be designated should know whether they are likely to receive reinstatement grants and whether their properties will become mortgageable, or whether they must think seriously about selling their properties back to the council.

Mr. Ray Powell: I welcome the amendments and especially amendment No. 4. I could talk about another clause 4, but in all probability my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would raise a point of order and say that clause 4 of the Labour party's constitution talks about the means of production, distribution and exchange. However, I will not go down that road—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If my hon. Friend extended his remarks on amendment No. 4 to financial institutions, I am sure that he would be in order and that the Chair would wish to uphold his right to speak about that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am always grateful for assistance, but the Chair will decide whether an hon. Member is in order.

Mr. Powell: I am particularly concerned about amendment No. 9, which says:
In this Act, 'associated arrangement' means any arrangement which—
(a) is to be entered into in connection with the execution of the work required to reinstate a defective dwelling".
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), I press the Minister to give a clear undertaking as to whether local authorities will be reimbursed, particularly in connection with this provision.
I have a sheaf of correspondence from the borough council of Taff-Ely. Perhaps the Minister from the Welsh Office will take note of this, because it deals particularly with the Welsh Office, which will determine what this clause will mean as it affects people, especially in part of my constituency at Hendreforgan crescent, Gilfach Goch. It reviews some of the council tenants at numbers 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 49 and 50 Francis street, and 5 and 10 at Hendreforgan crescent.
The tenants are particularly concerned about the reply that the Taff-Ely borough council has sent to them. The letter is dated 5 July 1984, and concerns some building repairs and renovations to houses in phase 1, and the extent to which the Welsh Office has been involved. The Welsh


Office is prepared to accept the tenders, but it has yet to give confirmation that the work can proceed. The tenants are hoping to get this work started by 8 August. The duration of the contracts, according to the letter, will be about one month, but the work to the dwellings will take about eight to nine weeks.
What does this mean? These amendments are important to my constituents in Hendreforgan crescent, and Francis street, because they want to know whether these "associated arrangements" will allow them to cover some of the costs that they will incur. I expect that the Minister is wondering what costs will be incurred. I shall read him the letter that shows what the Taff-Ely borough council suggests will be the cost of the refurbishment and renewal of some of the properties.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that these are pre-fabricated, reinforced concrete houses?

Mr. Powell: Yes, they are.
I shall give a list of the refurbishment that these houses will need, according to Mr. Prentice, who is the engineering and planning officer of the Taff-Ely borough council. This is a new part of my constituency, which has been added to the Ogmore area. It was not a part of my constituency in June last year, but was part of the constituency of Pontypridd, represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). Therefore, it is only since June that I have been involved with the constituents of Hendreforgan crescent, Gilfach Goch and I have taken up all the issues about which they have told me that they are worried. They say that if this work takes eight months, they will have to move out of their homes for eight months. Where will they stay? Who will ensure that they are compensated? They are asking numerous questions which anyone compelled to move out of his home would be asking.
The refurbishment will involve the internal wall linings. External walls will be provided with thermally insulative material. There will be renewal of certain ceilings, kitchen and bathroom fitments and electrical wiring. There will be internal decoration throughout, a new plumbing system, installation of partial solid fuel central heating, upgrading of outbuildings, renewal of gutters and fascias where necessary, repair generally to roof and chimneys and repairs to porches and external door surrounds.

Mr. Durant: I am following closely the list of repairs which the hon. Gentleman has outlined. I am, however, slightly confused, because I do not know whether these properties are council owned or privately owned. The Bill deals with those who own their properties, but not with council properties.

Mr. Powell: Some are owned by the council in Hendreforgan crescent and some have been purchased.
I was about to explain why I have mentioned the different categories of these properties. It will be necessary for all dwellings to be vacated for at least substantial elements of the work, and arrangements will be made by the housing manager in respect of those properties owned and allocated by the Taff-Ely borough council.
However, a number of anomalies affect those properties which have been purchased or those subject to prospective purchase by local authority tenants. That may answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Reading,

West (Mr. Durant) about whether these are council properties. Some have been sold and some are in the process of being sold, and the owners would like to know of the compensation, if any, to which they are entitled.
In addition, they want to know where they will be rehoused. It is no good saying to people in Gilfach Goch at the top of the valley that they will be rehoused at Tonyrefail or Pontypridd. They want to be rehoused somewhere near their families and friends, but there is no guarantee that that will happen.
Such people also want to know whether they will have a choice of accommodation. The local authority has said that that cannot be done, and that these people must accept whatever accommodation is available. That brings us back to Lords amendment No. 4. Will the statement that we shall receive from the Minister include any associated arrangement for compensation if these people are accommodated elsewhere?

Mr. Dixon: Is my hon. Friend aware that in South Tyneside district council about 350 Orlit houses came under the categories which have been outlined, some of which have been purchased. Those purchasers are concerned because defects have been discovered in the council-owned properties. If the private owners wish to have a private survey carried out, it will cost them many hundreds of pounds. If it is found that the houses are defective, they will qualify for a grant towards the investigation and survey. But if the survey finds that the houses are not defective, the owner-occupiers will receive no compensation whatever. That is another fault with the amendment and the Bill.

Mr. Powell: I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. The Bill and the amendments should ensure that wherever money is spent on investigation of properties, it should be reimbursed to the owners or purchasers.

Dr. Marek: The real solution is for the Government to provide funds to ensure that every council house, whether being purchased privately or still in the public sector, is investigated to ensure that it is not defective. If that is knot done, sooner or later there might be a terrible tragedy, and it is the Government's responsibility to take all possible steps to avoid that.

Mr. Powell: I agree with my hon. Friend that more funding should be made available. We want to ensure that whatever money is made available by the Government is not added to local authorities' expenditure.
I am concerned about the attitude of the Welsh Office to a number of issues of local government finance. A number of Bills have been introduced in this Session that curb local government expenditure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing not the whole Bill but amendments to it. He must relate his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Powell: The associated arrangements in clause 4 will affect the expenditure of local authorities because they must find the money to compensate those who have to move home so that they can be renovated or redecorated.
The questionnaire illustrated the problem with moving furniture. It clearly states that the local authority will not be responsible for the handling of furniture. It would be


prepared to pay for the storage of furniture if people have to live elsewhere but would not pay the total cost of handling the furniture.
If someone's home is to be altered or decorated, that person would have to move out. He would, for example, have to disconnect the telephone. The Taff-Ely borough council says that it will not pay for that—yet it costs money. What about cooker disconnection and reconnection? How much will that cost and who will pay for it? The council says that its electricians will do the work at no cost to the tenant or owners, but it then says that any appliance found to be defective or in a dangerous condition will not be reconnected and that tenants or owners will have to make alternative arrangements. If the tenant or owner has a cooker with a defective plug, it would not be reconnected when he moves back into his property — not in one month or two months, but in eight months.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes an important point which is central to the discussion. We need a guarantee from the Government that the extra costs will not be passed on to the tenants or owners or be borne by the local authorities. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, the charge for disconnecting a cooker is £50. That is an an astronomical amount for people on low or moderate incomes—and that is only for the cooker. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be impossible, unless the Minister gives a guarantee, for those concerned to meet such costs?

Mr. Powell: I agree, and let us remember that some of these costs will have to be borne by striking miners who have been out of work for 20 weeks and who have no money for expenses of this magnitude. That is why we must have a declaration from the Minister about reimbursement.
Question 9 of the questionnaire asks:
I have an external television aerial at my existing home. Will this be removed to my temporary accommodation?
The answer is:
There are no provisions for this, and tenants must make their own arrangements.
To have an external aerial removed and reconnected elsewhere can cost anything from £50 to £70. Again, striking miners who have been out of work for 20 weeks could be asked to meet that cost.

Mr. Dixon: The majority of these houses, certainly in my constituency, have flat roofs. Indeed, most faults in the concrete beams occur in the roof area. When those houses were constructed, a saving of £143 per house was made by having flat, rather than pitched, roofs. Now, when improvements are being made, money must be spent on those roofs because they are troublesome. Will the Minister include in the resettlement arrangements provision for those houses to have pitched roofs, rather than the hideous fiat ones that were put on when they were built?

Mr. Powell: I agree with my hon. Friend that one always has trouble with flat roofs, of which there are many in Ogmore. That is especially so when it rains hard, as it does often in Wales. Earlier today we were discussing the water shortage. We in Wales have the highest rainfall in Britain. It is a pity that the water has not been running into

the reservoirs instead of into the sea and being wasted. That might have avoided the order that will be introduced next week banning us from using water in Wales.
The questionnaire asks in question 10:
Who will take up and relay my fitted carpets?
The answer is:
It is the tenant's responsibility to arrange this at no cost to the Council. Because of this work being undertaken, the dimensions of rooms will be marginally smaller. Grate and hearth alterations will also affect this fitting of your carpet.
That is a tremendously expensive operation.

Mr. Skinner: £24 a square yard in the House.

Mr. Powell: I doubt whether the tenants and owners of the properties that I am referring to have such expensive carpets, especially when they have been on strike for 20 weeks. However, that is the sort of money that we are talking about. My constituents want to know who will reimburse them. If it is to be the local authority, who will reimburse it? Local authorities in Wales do not trust Welsh Office Ministers to keep promises made about reimbursement.

Mr. Skinner: Another problem arises out of a question answered by the Secretary of State for Energy today. Subsidence in mining areas is a matter for the coal board and not for the Government or the housing department of the local authority. However, the Secretary of State's written answer today says that the coal board is insolvent.
I was in my hon. Friend's constituency the other week for a marvellous rally for the miners at Maesteg. If the houses there were affected by subsidence at a colliery, the tenants could not claim money from the NCB, because the Secretary of State says that the board is insolvent. It will be the responsibility of the local authority to foot the bill temporarily. Has my hon. Friend thought about that?

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In my constituency, there are houses at Gilfach Goch only 200 yards from the colliery.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment has nothing to do with subsidence.

Mr. Powell: The NCB paid out £130 million last year because of subsidence. Not much came to my area, but the houses that I am talking about are near a colliery and could be affected by subsidence.
The Welsh Office might say that it would accept responsibility. Perhaps the owners would have to accept responsibility.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Which amendment is the hon. Gentleman referring to? None of the amendments relates to subsidence.

Mr. Powell: I am referring to Lords amendment No. 9:
In this Act, 'associated arrangement' means any arrangement which—
(a) is to be entered into in connection with the execution of the work required to reinstate a defective dwelling."
Paragraph (a) covers what I am referring to. The local authority must be reimbursed if it is to pay the owners of the property the compensation that they should be entitled to receive.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend refers to the question of the finances available to local authorities. I do not believe that the Government would recompense the local authorities. In the past five years, the Government have


spent as little as possible on housing in Wales, and less in each succeeding year. The result is that we now have the worst housing programme since the 1920s. If my hon. Friend thinks that the Government will provide any money, I think that he is wrong.

Mr. Powell: My hon. Friend has formed the wrong impression. I agree that the Government are unlikely to provide much money for the local authorities. Since 1979, they have not given much to Ogmore, Mid-Glamorgan, or a number of local authorities in the Principality. I do not expect that they will readily pay out or compensate the tenants.
If the amendments are to be made, we want to know whether or not the associated arrangements are to cover people living in Hendreforgan crescent, Gilfoch Goch.

Mr. Dixon: Has my hon. Friend visited one of the houses where there has been an inspection and a survey? I visited some recently in my constituency. There were about 60 holes drilled in the concrete in the roof and other parts of the house, to see whether it was defective. When the holes are drilled, the concrete is trodden into those £24 per square yard carpets. Are the tenants to be compensated for that damage? They are entitled to a grant only if the survey proves that the houses are defective. Would the cost of the damage to the carpets be added to the grant?

Mr. Powell: That is the crux of the question. Are people to be compensated for an inspection? I have visited houses where surveys have been carried out. The walls and ceilings are left in a terrible state, but the owners still have to occupy the premises. I am not sure whether or not they are to be compensated, but I know that the question of the associated arrangements should be considered. I hope that the Minister wil give us a reply. I want to be able to tell my constituents that they will be compensated and covered.

Mr. Skinner: Let us suppose that one of the tenants is not able to live in the property because he has been given a job in Oman and has to stay there for some time. He may be away for 12 months and come back to find the property in a terrible state because of the lack of care and supervision. What arrangements would be made to put that right? Where would the money come from? Would Cementation be brought in to put the matter right?

Mr. Powell: I shall not tempt your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by even attempting to reply to my hon. Friend's intervention.
It is important for me to ensure that the complaints from my constituents are listed and are on the record. The eleventh question and answer proposed by the Taff-Ely council runs:
I have installed central heating at my own expense. Will the system be ripped out or altered by the Contractors?
The system will be inspected by the Architect and the Heating Contractor to determine whether it has been installed correctly, and in some cases whether it is suitable for modification. Generally the system will not be ripped out, but certain alterations may be necessary to accommodate the improvement repair works.
The council is not prepared to accept the expense of a central heating system being ripped out and reconnected. We should also consider rent rebates for the inconvenience of works being carried out. The council says that no rebate or compensation will be given. The letter continues:
Will my rent be affected by the works to my home?
Yes, a new rent will be calculated and implemented by the Council, and you will be advised of this in due course.

Question 15:
Will my home be redecorated?
Yes, all rooms will be redecorated to a level stipulated by the Council. If you require a different standard of decorative finish, private arrangements can be made directly with the Sub-Contractors.
I have received a host of letters from people in other areas of my constituency in which owners have been affected. I shall not go into detail as I am sure that I have put sufficient on the record to enable the Minister to give me an assurance about whether compensation will be paid to owners, tenants or local authorities. I hope that proper arrangements will be made with the Welsh Office, which should make a categorical statement now to the effect that associated arrangements will be made and that reinstatement of defective dwellings will be compensated by the Government through local authorities.

Mr. Ancram: I think that I should reply to the debate on these amendments. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) for his welcome for these amendments. These issues were mentioned in our previous deliberations on the Bill. I am sure that all hon. Members welcome the way in which the matter has been dealt with in another place.
My hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) asked about timing in regard to the warranty. We have had discussions with the Building Societies Association and with the National House Building Council about a proposal that the council should operate a scheme to improve requirements for or methods of repair of PRC houses and to provide a warranty similar to that which the council offers in respect to new houses that are built by the private sector.
Discussions are continuing. I am sure that the National House Building Council is aware of the urgency that has been expressed again today. It also realises that this is a complex matter. Even when the outlines of the scheme have been devised, it will have to be developed in discussion with all of the parties concerned. I hope that there will be patience so that the scheme is ultimately on the right lines. I remind the House that the amendment will allow the cost of such warranties to count towards expenditure eligible for reinstatement grant, so it sets the ground in the hope of a successful outcome to the discussions that are taking place.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) went into his constituency problems in some detail. I think that he appreciates that the legislation deals with owners rather than tenants, but if the owners are eligible under clause 2 the work will be eligible for grant if they fall within clause 2(7), especially paragraph (b)(ii) which refers to
any other work reasonably required in connection with work falling within paragraph (a) above or this paragraph.
If the hon. Gentleman applies that definition to the repairs that he has described he should be able to decide whether grant will be payable, although it must also depend on whether the owners are eligible in the first place.

Mr. Dixon: If the owners of the Orlit houses in my constituency wish to replace the original flat roofs with pitched roofs, will that be eligible?

Mr. Ancram: The Bill makes it clear that reinstatement means bringing the value of the property up to that which it would have had if the defect had not been


present. The extent of work required to do that clearly depends on the type of house, but I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman applies the criteria in the Bill to the circumstances in his constituency he will be able to make a judgment.
The 90 per cent. Exchequer contibution to the grant paid will include a contribution to that part which is paid in respect of associated arrangements. That is what the amendment is about. I remind the hon. Member for Ogmore, too, that Lords amendment No. 9 provides that
'associated arrangement' means any arrangement which—
(a) is to be entered into in connection with the execution of the work required to reinstate a defective dwelling".
Again, of course, that will have to be applied to the circumstances of each case to see whether grant is payable.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) asked again about ex gratia payments. I apologise if I seemed to dodge the issue earlier but I had understood that he was asking about two particular individuals when I undertook to write to him. It seems that I may have misunderstood. In general, in advance of implementation of this legislation local authorities may, if they wish, acquire houses—the question of ex gratia payments and hardship applies only if the person wishes to move—but the approval of the Department will be needed both for access to the block borrowing approval and for sanction of any payment in excess of the defective value, which is the market value, if the authority does not think that it has power to make such payment itself. The Department will consider applications urgently and will give its approval where there is need on grounds of safety or serious hardship. I hope that I have now covered the hon. Gentleman's point. If I have not, my undertaking to write to him still stands.

Mr. Madden: I was using constituency cases to illustrate a principle with the hope of securing information from the Minister. He has provided that information. I press him further. Will ex gratia payments be available from local authorities to enable owners to carry out survey works to assess the extent of property defects in advance of the Bill receiving Royal Assent?

Mr. Ancram: The problem arises in areas of hardship where people want to move from their premises. The councils have the power to acquire such houses, subject to the criteria which I have set out. The hon. Gentleman must test particular cases against the criteria.
Hon. Members have asked about the financing of the scheme. I am sure that the hon. Member for Norwood is aware that the machinery and percentages are set out in clause 15. The hon. Member for Bradford, West will find the answer which he seeks in that clause.
I was asked about the implications for HIP and, in Scotland, for the housing allocations. The Minister for Housing and Construction has made it clear that he will take into account such costs, if they are made in bids to him, when he makes the allocations. I make the same prediction for Scotland. Overall allocations have not been formed yet for this year and in Scotland the bids have not been made, so I cannot be expected to give assurances about figures.

Mr. John Fraser: Does the Minister mean that such costs will be added to HIP?

Mr. Ancram: I can speak only from experience in Scotland, but allocations are made in the light of bids, all of which are taken into account. I cannot give assurances about figures. The same undertakings can be given for Scotland as have been given for England.
The amendment is useful and has been welcomed. I hope that the House will support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 5, line 45, at end insert—
(6A) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (4) above (whether as originally enacted or as previously amended under this subsection) so as to modify or omit any of the conditions there mentioned or to add or substitute for any of those conditions other conditions; and an order under this subsection—
(a) may make different provisions for different classes of case,
(b) shall not affect the operation of this section in relation to applications made under this section before the order comes into force.")

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 50.

Mr. Ancram: In another place, Lord Skelmersdale described these amendments as a safety net against unforeseen circumstances. Their purpose is to ensure that the scheme of assistance operates effectively. The conditions in clause 3(4) of the Bill govern whether assistance is to be by way of reinstatement grant. In some cases the conditions might lead to a sensible result so that repurchase rather than reinstatement should be the form of assistance. The amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to amend the conditions.
I recognise that the conditions in clause 3(4) go to the heart of the scheme. That is one reason why we must ensure that they are absolutely right.
11.15 pm
We have proposed in the amendment that any order by the Secretary of State to amend the conditions shall be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament. Hon. Members would be able to examine in detail, and to debate if necessary, any proposed changes. It is important that there should be that type of scrutiny over changes to this area. I hope that the amendment will find favour with the House.

Mr. Chope: Is my hon. Friend able to give a guarantee at this stage that the provisions of subsection (4)(b) will not be amended drastically so as to reduce, for example, the period of at least 30 years? Clearly, if that time were reduced by amendment, it would be a matter of great concern. Similarly, is my hon. Friend prepared to give an undertaking that the subsection would not be amended in relation to the provision for satisfactory terms with a lending institution?

Mr. Ancram: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction will give my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) the assurance that the subsection will not be used to reduce the period of 30 years.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments 6 to 10 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 9, line 11, leave out subsection (6).

Mr. Gow: I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It may be for the convenience of the House if we consider, with Lords amendments No. 11, Nos. 30, 37 and 45. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) has agreed that that would be acceptable.
The purpose of the first two amendments is simply to put beyond doubt whether it is open to a local authority to do work to defective dwellings that do not form part of its own stock. It is the Government's view that the powers contained in the Local Authorities (land) Act 1963 give local authorities that power. Some Opposition Members have expressed doubt. The purpose of the first two amendments is to remove whatever doubt there might be.
With regards to Lords Amendments Nos. 37 and 45, the hon. Member for Norwood will remember that we debated the matter in Standing Committee B on 15 May. I do not like much to quote a passage against myself, but the hon. Member for Norwood said at the conclusion of our debate that, in reality I was agreeing with him, although I was pretending to agree with the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman quoted those words against me in Committee.
We have reconsidered the arguments that the hon. Gentleman advanced in Committee and those advanced in another place by his noble Friend Lord Graham. I hope that the House will think that the Government's response to the hon. Gentleman's appeals and those of his noble Friend have fallen on fertile ground.

Mr. John Fraser: I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Graham.
There is a special problem in mining constituencies where houses have been sold by the National Coal Board and are found to be defective. Many of them are due to be resold to the local authority by the former Coal Board tenants. The houses are very unevenly distributed throughout the country, and could impose very heavy burdens on local authorities.
My noble Friend was right to press these matters in the other place, and the Government were right to accept that the cost of buying back those houses should attract a 100 per cent. instead of a 75 per cent. subsidy. I very much welcome that concession. If the amendment is pressed to a Division, I undertake to vote for, not against it.

Mr. Dixon: The Minister mentioned that local authorities will be allowed to pay a certain amount of expenditure on defective houses — incurred by owner occupiers. In south Tyneside, we have approximately 390 Orlit houses, of which 16 have been sold to tenants, so there are now 16 private owners. The council decided that a survey and investigation running to many thousands of pounds should be carried out. However, the private owners have not yet carried out that survey. Can the local authority carry out a survey for those private owners and not charge them for it, bearing it in mind that, under the Bill, if a private owner carries out a survey and inspection and finds out that the house is defective, he can get a grant towards it? If the house is not defective, the many hundreds of pounds that the private owner has spent are not returnable, and there is no grant towards that expenditure. Is the Minister saying that the local authority can reimburse those tenants for their expenditure on survey and inspection?

Mr. Gow: No, that is not the purpose of the amendment.

Mr. Dixon: Earlier the Minister said that local authorities would be allowed to give money to private tenants for those inspections. Is he now saying that that is not covered by the amendment? If that is so, he did not introduce the amendment properly.

Mr. Gow: I have nothing to add to what I said earlier. The purpose of these amendments is not the purpose to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6

REPURCHASE

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 10, line 20, after "Act" insert "(except paragraph 3B)"

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 13, 55 and 64.

Mr. Roberts: The purpose of the amendments is to deal with cases where a dwelling being repurchased under the Bill has benefited from previous repair, improvement or intermediate grant under the Housing Act 1974 or the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974. An authority making such a grant under part VII of the English Act or part I of the Scottish Act may impose conditions relating to the use of the dwelling, for example on availability for the letting. Breach of the conditions could result in the owner being required to repay grant. As that liability runs with the land, it is possible that, if the repurchased house were sold by the authority, after repair, the new owner could find himself being asked to repay a grant received by the original owner as a result of a breach of the conditions by the original owner. The amendments provide that upon repurchase of the dwelling under the Bill, any such condition shall cease to have effect. There will be no liability to repayment arising from a breach of those conditions before acquisition.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 13 agreed to.

New Clause

PURCHASE OF CERTAIN LAND BY AUTHORITY POSSESSING COMPULSORY PURCHASE POWERS

Lords amendment: No. 14, after clause 7 insert the following new clause—
 .—(1) In any case where—

(a) there was a disposal of an interest in a defect '.Eve dwelling, being an interest held by a person (in this section referred to as the "owner") w ho immediately before the time of disposal was eligible for assistance in respect of the dwelling,
(b) the disposal was made to an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers otherwise than in pursuance of section 6 or 7 of this Act,
(c) on the disposal, the authority acquired an interest in any affected land, that is to say, the defective dwelling and any garage, outhouse, garden, yard and appurtenances occupied with and used for the purposes of the dwelling or any part of it, and
(d) the amount paid as consideration for the disposal did not include any amount attributable to the owner's right to apply for assistance in respect of the dwelling,


the owner is entitled, subject to the following provisions of this section, to be paid by the housing authority the amount (if any) by which ninety-five per cent. of the defect-free value exceeds the amount of compensation for the disposal.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the amount of compensation for the disposal is—

(a) the amount that would have been the proper amount of compensation for the disposal (having regard, where any relevant determination has been made by the lands Tribunal or the lands Tribunal for Scotland, to that determination), or
(b) if greater, the amount paid as the consideration for the disposal,
but excluding any amount payable for disturbance or for any other matter not directly based on the value of land; and in this section the "defect-free value" means the amount that would have been the proper amount of compensation for the disposal (excluding any amount so payable) if none of the defective dwellings to which the designation in question related had been affected by the qualifying defect.
(3) For the purposes of this section—

(a) it is to be assumed that the disposal occurred on a compulsory acquisition (in cases where it did not in fact do so),
(b) where the compensation for the disposal fell to be assessed by reference to the value of the land as a site cleared of buildings and available for development then, for the purpose of determining the defect-free value, it is to be assumed that the compensation did not fall to be so assessed, and
(c) any amount which, apart from this paragraph, would be payable by a housing authority under subsection (1) above, shall be reduced by the amount of any payment made in respect of the defective dwelling under section 30 or 60 of the Housing Act 1957 or section 30 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974.
(4) A housing authority are not required to make a payment to any person under this section unless he makes a written application to them for the payment before the end of the period of two years beginning with the time of disposal.
(5) Where a housing authority refuse an application for a payment under this section on the grounds that the owner was not eligible for assistance in respect of the defective dwelling at the time of the disposal, they shall give to the applicant a notice in writing stating the reasons for their view.
(6) Any question arising under this section as to the amount of compensation for a dipsosal or defect-free value shall be determined by the district valuer if the owner or the housing authority so require by notice in writing served on the district valuer.
(7) Before making a determination in pursuance of subsection (6) above, the district valuer shall consider any representation by the owner or the authority made to him within four weeks from the service of the notice under that subsection.
(8) A person serving a notice on the district valuer under subsection (6) above shall serve notice in writing of that fact on the authority or, as the case may be, the owner.
(9) In this section—

"authority possessing compulsory purchase powers" has the same meaning as in the land Compensation Act 1961 or the land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963;
"district valuer" has the same meaning as in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to this Act; and
"housing authority", in relation to a defective dwelling, means the housing authority in whose area the dwelling is situated.
(10) In this section—

(a) references to the owner include a reference to his personal representatives; and
(b) the reference to appurtenances occupied with and used for the purposes of a dwelling or any part of it is, in Scotland, a reference to pertinents belonging to or usually enjoyed with the dwelling or any part of it."

Mr. Gow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that owners of defective dwellings are not deprived of the benefits of

the scheme of assistance as a result of the acquisition of their property by compulsory purchase or by agreement where a compulsory purchase order would otherwise have been made.
Under the terms of the compensation code, compensation in compulsory purchases cases is based on market value. The owner of a defective dwelling acquired in that way will be compensated by reference to the defective value of the property—perhaps before he had been able to receive assistance under the Bill. He could lose a considerable amount because of the chance intervention of the compulsory purchase order. The amendment is designed to remedy that injustice and I hope that the House will agree to it.

Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]

New Clause

RIGHTS OF PRE-EMPTION ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 15, after clause 7 insert the following new clause—
 .—(1) This section applies in any case where apart from this section)—

(a) a person (in this section referred to as "the owner") is entitled to assistance by way of repurchase in respect of a defective dwelling, and
(b) there is a covenant relating to his interest in the defective dwelling whereby—

(i) before disposing of the interest he must offer to dispose of it to a public sector authority, or
(ii) where, in the case of a leasehold interest, he may require a public sector authority being his landlord to accept a surrender of the lease, he is otherwise prohibited from disposing of it.
(2) If the public sector authority concerned are the appropriate authority, the covenant shall be disregarded for all purposes in relation to anything done by the owner in pursuance of the rights conferred on him by section 6 of and Schedule 2 to this Act.
(3) If the public sector authority concerned are not the appropriate authority, then—

(a) so long as the condition mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above applies, the owner is not to be treated for the purposes of section 6 of this Act as entitled to assistance by way of repurchase, and
(b) if the owner disposes of his interest to the public sector authority in pursuance of the covenant or lease, as the case may be, and the interest acquired by that authority on the disposal subsists only in the defective dwelling and any garage, outhouse, garden, yard and appurtenances occupied with an used for the purposes of the dwelling or any part of it, the owner is entitled, subject to subsection (6) below, to be paid by the housing authority the amount (if any) by which 95 per cent. of the defect-free value exceeds the consideration for the disposal.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the defect-free value is the amount that would have been the consideration for the disposal if none of the defective dwellings to which the designation in question related had been affected by the qualifying defect; and in subsection (3)(b) above and this subsection, "the consideration for the disposal" means, where the consideration for the disposal is required to be reduced by any amount under section 19(7) of the 1980 Act or any provision to the like effect, the aggregate of the consideration for the disposal (after that reduction) and that amount.
(5) If the public sector authority concerned are not the appropriate authority and the condition in subsection (3)(b) above is satisfied, section 8 of this Act shall apply in the case of the owner—

(a) as if the public sector authority were the appropriate authority and the interest acquired had been acquired by the authority in pursuance of section 6 of this Act,
(b) as if the reference in subsection (7) to the service of a copy agreement with a reference to the time of disposal, and


(c) where the public sector authority are not one of the bodies mentioned in section 19(7) of this Act, with the modifications set out in section 19(8) of this Act.
(6) A housing authority are not required to make a payment to any person under this section unless he makes a written application to them for the payment before the end of the period of two years beginning with the time of disposal.
(7) Where a housing authority refuse an application for a payment under this section they shall give to the owner a notice in writing stating their reasons for doing so.
(8) Any question arising under this section as to defect-free value shall be determined by the district valuer if the owner or the housing authority so require by notice in writing served on the district valuer.
(9) Before making a determination in pursuance of subsection (8) above, the district valuer shall consider any representation by the owner or the authority made to him within four weeks from the service of the notice under that subsection.
(10) A person serving a notice on the district valuer under subsection (8) above shall serve notice in writing of that fact on the authority or, as the case may be, the owner.
(11) In this section—

"district valuer" has the same meaning as in paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 2 to this Act;
"housing authority", in relation to a defective dwelling, means the housing authority in whose area the dwelling is situated;
and references to the owner include a reference to his personal representatives.
(12) This section applies to Scotland as if—

(a) the references to a covenant were references to a condition in the title to the defective dwelling;
(b) in subsections (2), (3)(a) and (5)(a), for "section 6" there were substituted "section 7";
(c) in subsection (3)(b), for "appurtenances occupied with and used for the purposes of the dwelling or any part of it" there were substituted "pertinents belonging to or usually enjoyed with the dwelling or any part of it"; and
(d) in subsection (5)(b), for "a copy agreement" there were substituted "an offer to purchase"."

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The new clause is necessary to ensure that pre-emption covenants imposed by public sector authorities—and in Scotland in conditions in the title to a defective dwelling — do not cut across the rights that the owner of a defective dwelling has to assistance under the Bill. The provisions, and the reasons why they are necessary, are similar to those relating to compulsory purchase, which we have just discussed.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special entry.]

Clause 8

SECURE TENANCIES

Lords amendment No. 16 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 13, line 8, after "shall" insert
except where the circumstances fall within paragraph 2 of Schedule (Alternative accommodation) to this Act,

Mr. Gow: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 20 and 65.

Mr. Gow: The purpose of the amendments is to clarify the circumstances in which a person being granted a secure tenancy under clause 8 is to be given a dwelling other than that being repurchased by the authority. It was a point about which the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) expressed concern in Committee. I hope that he will feel that the amendment goes a long way to meet his point.

Question put and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 31 agreed to.—[Some with Special Entry.]

Clause 14

JURISDICTION OF SHERIFF IN SCOTLAND

Lords amendment proposed: No. 32, in page 18, line 32, after "1(6)" insert
"(Purchase of certain land by authority possessing compulsory purchase powers) (6) (Rights of pre-emption etc.) (8)"—[Mr. Lang.]

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 5.

Division No. 440]
[11.28 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Howells, Geraint


Alton, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Amess, David
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Ancram, Michael
Johnston, Russell


Ashby, David
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Ashdown, Paddy
King, Rt Hon Tom


Aspinwall, Jack
Kirkwood, Archy


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Lang, Lan


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Lester, Jim


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Lilley, Peter


Baldry, Tony
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Beith, A. J.
Lord, Michael


Berry, Sir Anthony
Lyell, Nicholas


Bevan, David Gilroy
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Maclean, David John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Maples, John


Bottomley, Peter
Marland, Paul


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Mather, Carol


Braine, Sir Bernard
Maude, Hon Francis


Bright, Graham
Merchant, Piers


Brinton, Tim
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Browne, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Bruce, Malcolm
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Bruinvels, Peter
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Burt, Alistair
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Butcher, John
Murphy, Christopher


Butterfill, John
Neubert, Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Nicholls, Patrick


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Norris, Steven


Cash, William
Oppenheim, Phillip


Chapman, Sydney
Osborn, Sir John


Chope, Christopher
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Conway, Derek
Penhaligon, David


Coombs, Simon
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Lan


Cope, John
Powley, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dorrell, Stephen
Raffan, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Rhodes James, Robert


Dover, Den
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Durant, Tony
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Evennett, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Fallon, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Fox, Marcus
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Gale, Roger
Shgw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Goodlad, Alastair
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gorst, John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Gow, Lan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Spencer, Derek


Harvey, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hayes, J.
Stern, Michael


Heddle, John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Henderson, Barry
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Stewart, ALLan (Eastwood)


Howard, Michael
Stradling Thomas, J.


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Temple-Morris, Peter






Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Waller, Gary


Thorne, Neil (IIford S)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Thurnham, Peter
Watts, John


Tracey, Richard
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Twinn, Dr Lan
Whitfield, John


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wolfson, Mark


Waddington, David
Wood, Timothy


Wainwright, R.
Yeo, Tim


Wakeham, Rt Hon John



Waldegrave, Hon William
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walden, George
Mr. David Hunt and Mr. John Major.


Wallace, James





NOES


Campbell-Savours, Dale



Dixon, Donald
Tellers for the Noes:


Nellist, David
Dr. John Marek and Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Parry, Robert



Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 15

SECRETARY OF STATE'S CONTRIBUTION TO EXPENDITURE

Lords amendment: No 33, in page 19, line 6, after "authority" insert "(a)".

Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 34 to 36.

Mr. Ancram: These amendments are consequential the new clauses dealing with compulsory purchase and the rights of pre-emption, and provide that the contribution to be made by the Secretary of State under clause 15 shall also be made in respect of the top-up payments made by the housing authority under these two clauses. I hope that this will find favour.

Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have separate votes on each of the three amendments?

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 7.

Division No. 441]
[11.39 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butcher, John


Ancram, Michael
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Tom
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ashby, David
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)


Ashdown, Paddy
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Aspinwall, Jack
Cash, William


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Chapman, Sydney


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Baldry, Tony
Conway, Derek


Beith, A. J.
Coombs, Simon


Berry, Sir Anthony
Cope, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Craigen, J. M.


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dover, Den


Braine, Sir Bernard
Durant, Tony


Bright, Graham
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Brinton, Tim
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Evennett, David


Browne, John
Fallon, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm
Fox, Marcus


Bruinvels, Peter
Fraser, J. (Norwood)





Gale, Roger
Penhaligon, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Gorst, John
Powley, John


Gow, Lan
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Raffan, Keith


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Harvey, Robert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hayes, J.
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Heddle, John
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Henderson, Barry
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rowe, Andrew


Howard, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howells, Geraint
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Johnston, Russell
Spencer, Derek


King, Rt Hon Tom
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lester, Jim
Stern, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lyell, Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, J.


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maclean, David John
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Major, John
Thorne, Neil (IIford S)


Maples, John
Thurnham, Peter


Marek, Dr John
Tracey, Richard


Marland, Paul
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mather, Carol
Waddington, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Merchant, Piers
Walden, George


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wallace, James


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Waller, Gary


Montgomery, Fergus
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Watts, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Whitfield, John


Murphy, Christopher
Wolfson, Mark


Neubert, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Nicholls, Patrick
Yeo, Tim


Norris, Steven



Oppenheim, Phillip
Tellers for the Ayes:


Osborn, Sir John
Mr. John Hunt and Mr. Ian Lang.


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)



Page, Richard (Herts SW)





NOES


Dixon, Donald
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Nellist, David



Parry, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. David Alton.


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment proposed: No. 34, in page 19, line 9, at end insert—
or

(b) in making any payment under section (Purchase of certain land by authority possessing compulsory purchase powers) or (Rights of pre-emption etc.) of this Act."—[Mr. Ancram.]

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 4.

Division No.442]
[11.51 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Ancram, Michael
Baldry, Tony


Arnold, Tom
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashby, David
Berry, Sir Anthony


Ashdown, Paddy
Bevan, David Gilroy


Aspinwall, Jack
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Boscawen, Hon Robert






Bottomley, Peter
Maude, Hon Francis


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Merchant, Piers


Braine, Sir Bernard
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bright, Graham
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Brinton, Tim
Montgomery, Fergus


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Browne, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Bruce, Malcolm
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Bruinvels, Peter
Murphy, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Nicholls, Patrick


Butcher, John
Norris, Steven


Butterfill, John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Osborn, Sir John


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Cash, William
Penhaligon, David


Chope, Christopher
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Conway, Derek
Powley, John


Coombs, Simon
Proctor, K. Harvey


Cope, John
Raffan, Keith


Craigen, J. M.
Rhodes James, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dixon, Donald
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Dorrell, Stephen
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Roe, Mrs Marion


Dover, Den
Rowe, Andrew


Durant, Tony
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Evennett, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Fallon, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Fox, Marcus
Spencer, Derek


Gale, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Goodlad, Alastair
Stern, Michael


Gorst, John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Gow, Ian
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Harvey, Robert
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hayes, J.
Temple-Morris, Peter


Henderson, Barry
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Thorne, Neil (IIford S)


Howard, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Tracey, Richard


Howells, Geraint
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Waddington, David


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Walden, George


Johnston, Russell
Wallace, James


Lang, Ian
Waller, Gary


Lilley, Peter
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Watts, John


Lord, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Lyell, Nicholas
Whitfield, John


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Wolfson, Mark


Maclean, David John
Wood, Timothy


Major, John
Yeo, Tim


Maples, John



Marek, Dr John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marland, Paul
Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Michael Neubert


Mather, Carol





NOES


Nellist, David



Parry, Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. David Alton.


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Question accordingly agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

12 midnight

Lords amendment proposed, No. 35 in page 19, line 13, leave out
"as the case may be"—[Mr. Ancram]

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 126, Noes 5.

Division No. 443]
[12.01 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Amess, David
Maclean, David John


Ancram, Michael
Maples, John


Arnold, Tom
Marek, Dr John


Ashby, David
Marland, Paul


Ashdown, Paddy
Mather, Carol


Aspinwall, Jack
Maude, Hon Francis


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Merchant, Piers


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Baldry, Tony
Montgomery, Fergus


Berry, Sir Anthony
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Murphy, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter
Neubert, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Nicholls, Patrick


Braine, Sir Bernard
Norris, Steven


Bright, Graham
Oppenheim, Phillip


Brinton, Tim
Osborn, Sir John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Browne, John
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Bruce, Malcolm
Penhaligon, David


Bruinvels, Peter
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Burt, Alistair
Powley, John


Butcher, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Butterfill, John
Raffan, Keith


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Rhodes James, Robert


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Cash, William
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Chope, Christopher
Roe, Mrs Marion


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Rowe, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Coombs, Simon
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Cope, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Craigen, J. M.
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Spencer, Derek


Dorrell, Stephen
Stanbrook, Ivor


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Stern, Michael


Dover, Den
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Durant, Tony
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Evennett, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fallon, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fox, Marcus
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Gale, Roger
Thorne, Neil (IIford S)


Goodlad, Alastair
Thurnham, Peter


Gorst, John
Tracey, Richard


Gow, Ian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Waddington, David


Hancock, Mr. Michael
Walden, George


Harvey, Robert
Wallace, James


Hayes, J.
Waller, Gary


Henderson, Barry
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Watts, John


Howard, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Howells, Geraint
Whitfield, John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wolfson, Mark


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Wood, Timothy


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Yeo, Tim


Johnston, Russell



Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lord, Michael
Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. John Major.


Lyell, Nicholas





NOES


Evans, John (St. Helens N)



Nellist, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Parry, Robert
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. David Alton.


Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment proposed: No. 36, in page 19, line 14, after "completed" insert:


or in which the payment under section (Purchase of certain and by authority possessing compulsory purchase powers) or (Rights of pre-emption etc.) of this Act was made, as the case may be" —[Mr. Lang.]

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places; and he declared the "Ayes" had it; twelve Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.

Question agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In so far as I raised my point of order during a Division—I gather that within our procedures a Division in fact took place — surely the result of the Division should not have been announced until my point of order had been heard. Is that not so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member also had to have a hat on, which I did not notice.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the precedent has been set for heads to be covered rather than for hats to be worn. That being so, the Division that has just taken place was surely not a valid Division of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: So far as I am concerned, it was certainly valid. It was a recommendation of the Procedure Committee approved by the House. I did not see any hat.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sat in my place following the procedures laid down by precedent in "Erskine May" and I called "point of order" three times before the announcement was made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I said that I would take the point of order after the Division. That is quite within the accepted procedures.

Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great respect, I was a member of the Procedure Committee which discussed the question of wearing a hat to raise a point of order during a Division. The Committee specifically said that if the head was covered rather than a hat actually being worn the point of order was valid. The hon. Gentleman's head was covered and he was entitled to have his point of order heard during the Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that this is an occasion —[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order and he should listen to the reply. I think that this is an occasion on which we need a bit of good temper and common sense. I will certainly have another look at this, but I understand that there was a recommendation. I told the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that I would take his point of order after the Division and I have done so.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Taking the point of order after the Division affects the reason why I wished to raise it in the first place. The precedent for the action that you took occurred on 1 July 1975 in relation to the Industry Bill

when the then Government decided to use what was then Standing Order No. 36, now Standing Order No. 38. Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, then Member for Devon, North, made the following point, which I believe is relevant today. He said:
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you assist the House by giving a little further elucidation of your most recent ruling? I understand that you are relying upon Standing Order No. 36, which provides that if in your opinion a Division is unnecessarily claimed, you may disallow it. Are we to take it, Sir, that that is a qualitative or a quantitative criterion? While accepting the ruling which you have just given, may I ask you whether it is not a fact that if your discretion in the future is merely to be determined by numbers, it would be a criterion which would spell the doom of every minority in the House, including the official Opposition."— [Official Report, 1 July 1975; Vol. 894, c. 1368.]
I do not raise this specifically to defend the interests of the British Liberal party. Whoever minorities are and whatever form they take, I believe that it is very wrong indeed that a procedure should be used which prevents them or any other minority group from expressing an opinion. I find it very hard—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have refreshed my memory of those proceedings. Indeed, I have studied them very carefully. In giving my judgment, I said nothing about its being qualitative or quantitative and I have wide discretion.
On the other point, I must say that a point of order cannot be allowed to interfere with the procedure of a Division. I am anxious to help the House and to be fair. I have given my judgment and used my discretion. I studied the proceedings carefully before I came to any decision.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Part of the job of the Chair is to protect the rights of Back Benchers and minorities. The only way in which minorities can make a protest in the House is by using the procedures of the House, but they tend to mess up the cosy arrangements between the two major parties. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the implementation of Standing Order No. 38 denies a minority party in the House the only method available to register protest.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). He believes that the implementation of Standing Order No. 38 is unfair to some hon. Members, but my job is to implement the Standing Orders, to use my discretion, and at the same time to protect the House. That is what I want to do. After the three votes it seemed to me that I should use my discretion. I did that, and I feel that in so doing I was helping the House.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to the point of order. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, accept that your decision tonight is based upon a quantitative criterion? Can you explain—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman reads the Standing Order he will find that I have discretion, and that I have to protect the whole House and its orders and procedures. If hon. Members feel that they have been prejudiced, I am sorry, but I try to be fair.

Mr. Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the 1974 Government we were engaged in a similar incident when the Speaker decided to count the heads in the Chamber. The reason that he gave was clear.


A group of us — all Labour—decided to take on the Government. It became apparent to Mr. Speaker, after several proper divisions, that the hon. Members who were voting were the same. He decided that because they were the same in all the votes he could invoke the then Standing Order No. 36.
Tonight has been different. Several Divisions have taken place and in the latter stages Divisions have been called by the Liberals. It is ironic that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, can ascertain who is voting by counting heads when the Liberals have not followed their voice with their vote on several previous Divisions. The Liberals have appointed Tellers and we have voted. You have a problem, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Liberals are appointing Tellers and not voting, but you are unsure what will happen on this occasion.
The irony is that on the last occasion the Liberals, who had no intention of voting on previous occasions, suddenly decided to stand up.
I should like to know, in view of the fact that you are unsure of the hon. Members who will vote, whether you can call Standing Order No. 38 into play on this occasion, because hon. Members who voted were not the same as those who voted on previous occasions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Standing Order No. 38 gives the occupant of the Chair discretion if he feels that a Division is being unnecessarily claimed. That was my judgment. I ask the House to accept it. Let us get on with the debate.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Standing Order No. 38 allows hon. Members to challenge your discretion, to decide that a Division is unnecessary by rising in their places. The previous two Divisions have involved considerably fewer hon. Members than those who were standing in their places when you sought to assess the mood of the House. But you allowed a Division, in the full sense of that word, to take place on those occasions.
It seems inconsistent to allow the House to be divided when, as I recollect, the hon. Members voting "No" in the Division were variously five, four and six, and then not to allow a Division when the number of hon. Members standing in their places was more than that. The best assessment that you would be able to make, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that a larger number of hon. Members wished to record their vote.
I ask for a ruling about the procedure that allows Divisions to take place when the results show that only a handful of hon. Members have voted, yet disallowed Divisions when a greater number of hon. Members, from whatever party, show that they wish to proceed to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I am anxious to protect minorities in the House. If my discretion were based quantitatively on the number of hon. Members who had previously voted, I would be in danger of prejudicing minorities. I used my discretion and found that the proceedings had reached a stage where a Division was being claimed unnecessarily. I assure the House that I gave my ruling in good faith. I hope that the House will accept that. Wo ought to proceed with the debate.

Dr. Marek: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you can help me by saying whether it is in order

to listen to a point of order raised by Liberal Members, all of whom have been absent until 45 minutes ago, who have come into the debate just recently and seem to be voting—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for me to make judgments like that.

Lords amendment proposed: No. 37, in page 19, line 19, leave out "and"—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared the "Ayes" had it; twelve Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.

Question agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a simple point of order. Is it not proper, and therefore necessary, for how Members who feel that they wish to delay the amendments to be able to force a Division? Is not any Division called for that purpose necessary to protect the interests of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I am the servant of the House, and my task is to interpret the Standing Orders to the best of my ability. That Standing Order in fact gives me the right to do what I have just done. I hope that we shall be able to proceed.

Lords amendment proposed: No. 38, in page 19, line 20, after "repurchase" insert
or of any payment under section (purchase of certain land by authority possessing compulsory purchase powers) or (Rights of pre-emption etc.) of this Act, being a case in which there has at any time been a disposal of a relevant interest in the defective dwelling concerned by the housing authority or any authority being their predecessor"—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared the "Ayes" had it; thirteen Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.

Question agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendment proposed: No. 39, in page 19, line 20 at end insert—
and

(c) in any other case of repurchase or payment under that section, 100 per cent."—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared the "Ayes" had it; fourteen Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.

Question agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Since these proceedings may seem a little arcane to those outside, perhaps it could be recorded that the Liberal party has just voted against a 100 per cent. housing subsidy to local authorities.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was hardly a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the last matter was a point of order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I said that it was not a matter for the Chair; therefore, it was not a point of order. I have already ruled on that.

Lords amendment proposed: No. 40, in page 19, line 21, leave out "either case" and insert "any of those cases" —[Mr. David Hunt.]

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order when he has received the hat and makes it in the proper way.

Mr. Beith (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that your task —[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has every right to raise a point of order, and the House and the Chair are entitled to hear him.

Mr. Beith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not only that I might have difficulty in making myself heard but that you were having difficulty in making yourself heard when giving the number of the amendment to which you referred when you began this Division. It was inaudible from where I was sitting.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry about that; I believed that I had made it clear. It is Lords amendment No. 40.

Mr. Beith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places; and he declared the "Ayes" had it; twelve Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.

Question agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Lords amendments No. 41 to 46 agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

New Clause

APPLICATION OF Am' IN RELATION TO MORTGAGEES

Lords amendment No. 47: Insert the following new clause:
 .—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purpose of conferring rights and obligations on any mortgagee of a defective dwelling where—

(a) a power of sale (whether conferred by section 101 of the Law of Property Act 1925 or otherwise) is exercisable by the mortgagee, and

(b) the mortgagor is eligible for assistance in respect of the defective dwelling.
(2) The rights that may be conferred on a mortgagee by regulations under this section are—

(a) rights corresponding to those conferred by this Act on a person holding a relevant interest in the defective dwelling,
(b) the right to require the appropriate authority to acquire in accordance with the regulations any interest in the defective dwelling to be disposed of in exercise of the power of sale, and
(c) where the mortgagee is the appropriate authority the right by deed to vest the dwelling in themselves,
and the rights that may be so conferred may be conferred in place of any rights conferred on any other person by this Act.
(3) Regulations under this section may provide that, where the conditions in subsection (1)(a) and (b) above are or have been satisfied, this Act, the power of sale in question and any enactment relating to the power of sale shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.
(4) Where a defective dwelling is vested in a mortgagee in pursuance of regulations under this section or in pursuance of sections 112 and 113 of the 1980 Act or section 19 of and Schedule 5 to the Housing and Building Control Act 1984 (vesting of mortgaged dwelling-house in local authority etc.), the regulations may provide for the payment in respect of the vesting of an amount calculated on the assumption that none of the defective dwellings to which the designation in question relates are affected by the qualifying defect, and those enactments shall have effect subject to any such provisions.
(5) Regulations under this section—

(a) may make different provision for different cases, and
(b) may make incidental and consequential provision.
(6) In this section "mortgagee" and "mortgagor" have the same meaning as in the Law of Proper Act 1925.
(7) This section does not apply to Scotland."—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 48.

Mr. Alex Carlile: In relation to amendment No. 47, some serious and substantive points require the consideration of the House. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends, who are here in far greater proportion than any other party in the House—[Interruption.] The official Opposition have been noticeable for the presence of their rebels but not for anything else.
I ask the Minister to explain certain matters which arise from Lords amendments Nos. 47 and 48. Lords amendment No. 47 involves the insertion of a new clause which provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations to confer
rights and obligations on any mortgagee of a defective dwelling".
It is important to understand what a mortgage is or may be. The mortgagee may be a private individual, or a bank, insurance company or building society. I am sure that the House will agree that the banks, the insurance companies and the building societies do not need a great deal of help from this House to survive the arrival in their hands by foreclosure, or similar procedure, of a defective dwellinghouse.
The first subsection of the new clause provides that the Secretary of State can make regulations conferring on a mortgagee what appear to be the same rights as are conferred upon the private purchaser of a dwellinghouse which is affected by the Bill. That is plain from subsection 1(b), which requires as a qualifying criterion that the mortgagor should be eligible
for assistance in respect of the defective dwelling.


It is important to examine the rights that are conferred by the new clause. The rights which are conferred on the mortgagee, as we can see from subsection 2(a), correspond to the rights which are conferred by the Bill to a person holding a relevant interest in the defective dwelling. It seems that the effect of the new clause will be to give the rights to a building society or insurance company, or any other mortgagee which forecloses, to obtain compensation because the dwelling-house is defective.
A serious issue is raised by that provision. Is it right that mortgagees — financial institutions well able to look after themselves and which are in the business of risk—should be able to take advantage, at the public's expense, of a provision which is designed to protect someone quite different? The Bill, which we commend in almost all respects, is designed to protect the person who is buying in at the cheaper end of the housing market, who is buying an Airey home or other type of building which has proved to be defective, and who finds himself unfairly faced with repairs which he cannot afford to effect. We know that the pressure for the introduction of the Bill has come for just that reason. That pressure arose because many individuals found that their homes were falling down about them and they did not have a hope of financing the repairs out of their own capital or of raising any further capital, beyond the mortgage which they raised on purchase, by going to one of the established financial institutions.
That is one thing: but why should the financial institutions be able to trot along to the Government for support? The compensatory money is not all subsidised. Some of it will have to come from rate-capped authorities, from local authorities which are hard pressed by the Government. We know that our local authorities are sorely pushed. In my constituency, for example no money is being made available for most of the grants which in theory can be taken out. That has happened because the money allocated for the grants has run out. That is a disgrace and the Government have failed to provide an adequate explanation for it. Yet by this new clause the Government propose to line the pockets of the financial institutions, and I wonder why.
Could it be connected with the fact that some of these mortgagees happen to throw the odd few tens of thousands of pounds into the coffers of the Tory party when an election comes along? We should like an answer to that. Who will benefit from this new clause? I look forward to the explanation that I hope that we shall receive from the Minister.

Mr. James Wallace: I understand that with amendment No 47 we are discussing amendment No 48, which is similar to amendment No 47, but applies to Scotland. I understand that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, has been in the House for part of the evening, but it is regrettable that there is now no Scottish Minister on the Front Bench, when this amendment is being discussed. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, we are wary that this Act should not become a pretext for handing out large sums of public money to such institutions as banks and building societies.
Amendment 48 (4) says:
(4) Regulations under this section—

(a) may make different provision for different cases, and
(b) may make incidental and consequential provision.

The Government must explain what different provision was envisaged when this amendment was drafted, and what different cases they had in mind. Building societies and banks have great expertise at their disposal and will not be buying the properties from the local authorities on simple trust, as many who this Bill is designed to protect will have done. Therefore, they represent a different kind of case from those at which the Bill is directed. These matters are important, and the Government must provide an answer.

Mr. Gow: I hope that I shall be able to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), one of whom comes from Scotland and the other of whom comes from Wales.
The purpose of the amendment is to enable my right hon. Friend to make suitable provision to enable all mortgagees entitled to exercise the right of sale to apply for assistance in place of the owner or to step into the shoes of the owner who has made an application but does not press it to a conclusion. Neither the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland nor the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was a member of the Committee—I do not make a complaint about that but merely comment on it — and therefore neither of them was present for our debates on this subject. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) was a member of the Committee and he took a particular interest in the subject, and will be able to testify to our long debates on it.
The purpose of the amendment is to put into the same position as private mortgages those who are also building societies. I commend it to the House as a fair measure.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 16.

Division No. 444]
[12.53 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Ancram, Michael
Durant, Tony


Amold, Tom
Evennett, David


Ashby, David
Fallon, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Fox, Marcus


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Gale, Roger


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Goodlad, Alastair


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Gorst, John


Baldry, Tony
Gow, Ian


Berry, Sir Anthony
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Harvey, Robert


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayes, J.


Bottomley, Peter
Heddle, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Henderson, Barry


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howard, Michael


Bright, Graham
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brinton, Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Lilley, Peter


Browne, John
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Bruinvels, Peter
Lord, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Lyell, Nicholas


Butterfill, John
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Maclean, David John


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Major, John


Cash, William
Maples, John


Chope, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Mather, Carol


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Maude, Hon Francis


Conway, Derek
Merchant, Piers


Coombs, Simon
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cope, John
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Montgomery, Fergus






Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Norris, Steven
Thorne, Neil (IIford S)


Osborn, Sir John
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Tracey, Richard


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Waddington, David


Powley, John
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Raffan, Keith
Walden, George


Rhodes James, Robert
Waller, Gary


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wardle,-C. (Bexhill)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Watts, John


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Whitfield, John


Rowe, Andrew
Wolfson, Mark


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Yeo, Tim


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Soames, Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spencer, Derek
Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Stanbrook, Ivor



Stern, Michael





NOES


Alton, David
Hancock, Mr. Michael


Ashdown, Paddy
Howells, Geraint


Beith, A. J.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bruce, Malcolm
Johnston, Russell


Marek, Dr John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Wallace, James


Parry, Robert



Penhaligon, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Alex Carlile.


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Question accordingly agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

New Clause

APPLICATION OF ACT IN RELATION TO LENDERS ON SECURITY OF DEFECTIVE DWELLING IN SCOTLAND

Lords amendment proposed: No. 48, insert the following new clause—
 .—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the purpose of conferring rights and obligations on any person who has granted a loan on the security of a defective dwelling where—

(a) a power of sale is exercisable by the lender, and
(b) the borrower is eligible for assistance in respect of the defective dwelling.
(2) The rights that may be conferred on a lender by regulations under this section are—

(a) rights corresponding to those conferred by this Act on a person holding a relevant interest in the defective dwelling, and
(b) the right to require the appropriate authority to acquire in accordance with the regulations any interest in the defective dwelling to be disposed of in exercise of the power of sale,
and the rights that may be so conferred may be conferred in place of any rights conferred on any other person by this Act.
(3) Regulations under this section may provide that, where the conditions in subsection (1)(a) and (b) above are or have been satisfied, this Act, the power of sale and any enactment relating to the power of sale in question shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.
(4) Regulations under this section—

(a) may make different provision for different cases, and
(b) may make incidental and consequential provision.
(5) This section applies to Scotland only."—[Mr. Gow.]

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 15.

Division 445]
[1.03 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Major, John


Amess, David
Maples, John


Ancram, Michael
Marland, Paul


Arnold, Tom
Mather, Carol


Ashby, David
Maude, Hon Francis


Aspinwall, Jack
Merchant, Piers


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Montgomery, Fergus


Baldry, Tony
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Neubert, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Nicholls, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Norris, Steven


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Bright, Graham
Powley, John


Brinton, Tim
Raffan, Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Rhodes James, Robert


Browne, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bruinvels, Peter
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Burt, Alistair
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Butterfill, John
Roe, Mrs Marion


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Rowe, Andrew


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Cash, William
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Chope, Christopher
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S"n)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Spencer, Derek


Conway, Derek
Stanbrook, Ivor


Coombs, Simon
Stern, Michael


Cope, John
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Dorrell, Stephen
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Temple-Morris, Peter


Durant, Tony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Evennett, David
Thorne, Neil (IIford S)


Fallon, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Fox, Marcus
Tracey, Richard


Gale, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Gorst, John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Gow, Ian
Waddington, David


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Harvey, Robert
Walden, George


Hayes, J.
Waller, Gary


Henderson, Barry
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Howard, Michael
Watts, John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Whitfield, John


Lang, Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Lilley, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Yeo, Tim


Lord, Michael



Lyell, Nicholas
Tellers for the Ayes:


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Mr. Alastair Goodlad and Mr. Douglas Hogg.


Maclean, David John





NOES


Alton, David
Penhaligon, David


Ashdown, Paddy
Skinner, Dennis


Beith, A. J.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Bruce, Malcolm
Steel, Rt Hon David


Howells, Geraint
Wallace, James


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Johnston, Russell
Tellers for the Noes:


Marek, Dr John
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and Mr. Alex Carlile.


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David



Parry, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 17

RULES AND ORDERS

Lords amendment proposed: No. 49, 1, after "order" insert "or regulations' —[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we amendment No. 51.

Mr. Beith: The amendments touch on procedures of the House which are rightly of concern to hon. Members, not least my right hon. and hon. Friends, who, when unable to express their protests in any other way, are forced to press some amendments to a Division.
The amendments relate to statutory instruments dealt with by the negative resolution procedure. Regulations shall be
subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
That would sound a grand and impressive phrase to a layman. It would give him the feeling that the House has at its disposal procedures to ensure that any regulations made under the Bill will be subject to the most careful safeguards—that they cannot proceed without the House reaching a decision. That could not be further from the truth.
The negative procedure is one of the ways in which the House has allowed power to pass into the hands of the Executive. We deeply resent it.
1.15 am
The negative procedure operates as follows. The Government lay the order. Hon. Members can then, within 40 days, table a prayer against the order. When the procedure was first introduced, such prayers were automatically debated. Provision was always made for them to be debated on the Floor of the House, and there was no time limit on the debate. We could discuss the statutory instruments in detail, far into the night. However, as always, when Governments found that hon. members were making their protests too strongly, they curtailed the procedures and made it impossible for hon. Members to raise their grievances. They ensured that debates on such instruments as those made under this clause can last for only one and a half hours. They did more. They ruled that the debates must end at 11·30 pm.
If the debate nominally starts at 10 pm and there are two Divisions at 10 pm, the debate will only last for an hour. If a debate is to last for an hour, there will be a 20-minute speech from the Opposition Front Bench, a 20-minute speech from the Government Front Bench, and speeches from a couple of Labour Back Benchers and a couple of Conservative Back Benchers. At about 11·25 pm, we may be told that if the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is very helpful, he may speak for two minutes.
From time to time, to the annoyance of the Labour party, it happens to be my hon. Friends who table the prayer first. That is more satisfactory for us, but it is still not fair. On a number of occasions—in the case of the student grants, for example—the Labour Opposition has had to sit back while my hon. Friends have prayed against the statutory instrument. That is not fair to the Labour Opposition or perhaps to other Back Benchers. The procedure does not allow a fair chance to minority groups in the House.
There is no guarantee that there will be a debate on the Floor of the House. Most debates on statutory instruments take place in Committee. That was not always the case. I am sure that the Leader of the House will recall vividly how his predecessor, Captain Crookshank, guaranteed at the Dispatch Box that all such prayers would be debated on the Floor of the House if hon. Members wished to debate them. But that did not happen.
If an hon. Member were to pray against an order under this section, there is no guarantee that he even get a debate in a Standing Committee. He might — like my hon. Friends—support the principles of the Bill and wish it to come into effect so that householders could benefit from its provisions. But he might, for example, have reservations about the position of local authorities, whose housing investment programmes and housing repair funds will be drawn upon in order to meet costs incurred because the Government had persuaded local authorities to build houses which turned out to be defective. An hon. Member who wants to make a limited point off such a kind on one of the orders—instead of opposing the main legislation, as my hon. Friends have had to do on certain Lords amendments tonight—will find that he has no guarantee of a debate in Committee.
Let us suppose that the Government Whips are in an exceptionally favourable mood and allow an hon. Gentleman to debate a statutory instrument in Committee under the negative procedure. Let us say that some anxiety is expressed on the Government side as well as among my hon. Friends, and there is a vote. The Committee vote s, and the decision is taken that the Committee has not considered the instrument. However, there is no procedure for the Committee's rejection of the instrument ever to be reported to the House. The Clerk has to report to the House that the Committee has considered the instrument, because, manifestly, it has. He therefore reports to the House in defiance of the Committee's decision. That is a glaring example of procedures that prevent hon. Members from expressing their grievances in what might be the mast natural and appropriate way—voting against a proposal in Committee. The result of procedures such as this being applied yet again is that hon. Members in the circumstances that I have described will be obliged to vote against things that they might agree with, simply to register their protest, as my right hon. and hon. Friends have had to do tonight.
Some Conservative Members are new to the House and have not yet grasped some of the intricacies of its procedures. One day they will find themselves on a Statutory Instruments Committee and with a genuine grievance. There will be a Division and they will realise the enormous stupidity of this procedure as they cast a vote and think, "Good heavens". They think that they will rock the Government back on their heels and be forced to vote against them, only to discover that the procedures have no effect. When that day conies they might realise the frustration and indignation of my right hon. and hon. Friends on issues such as this, on the selection of Members for Select Committees and the dominance of the Labour party over Opposition time. Under the present procedures, hon. Members have no legitimate means by which to make a point, so we have to resort to others. I counsel Conservative Members that among them are at least two senior and experienced hon. Members who have sat on a Statutory Instruments Standing Committee and have had to record no substantive vote.
When a Statutory Instruments Standing Committee records a vote againt something, the matter should come to the Floor of the House so that the House can record its decision. I understand why Government Whips would not want to regard as final a Division in a Committee on an off day because some hon. Members have been up late the night before, as is the case today, and have not turned up to the Committee in the morning. We all want to raise our legitimate grievances on the Floor of the House but, time and again, we are denied the opportunity to do so.
The tabling of prayers against Statutory Instruments is one way in which groups, which are not provided with the acres of time that are available to the Government and the 19 Opposition days that are available to the Labour party, can engage some of the House's time on issues such as those which arise from this Bill and that cause them concern.
If successive Governments continue to narrow the procedures of the House and to close their minds to improvements of our procedures and any accommodation of the views of groups which might have the support of 25 per cent. of the voters, they will find that hon. Members have to resort to late Divisions and speeches on a wide variety of matters to get over the point that the Government do not own the House of Commons. The House of Commons is the chamber of the Parliament of the people of the United Kingdom who sent us here, and we shall exert and assert our right to speak here.

Mr. Gow: It is characteristic of the self-styled Chief Whip of the Liberal party to address the House on a consequential amendment to an amendment—No. 46— which the House debated long ago. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales gave a full explanation of the procedures proposed, but the Benches now occupied by the Liberals and the Social Democrats were totally empty at that time.

Mr. Alex Carlile: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister suggested that these Benches were empty on the occasion to which he referred. May I ask you to invite him to withdraw that remark. I was certainly here, and so was my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me. [Interruption.] Order. If the hon. Gentleman raises a point of order he should wait for the answer. Who was present is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Gow: Secondly — [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I have nothing to withdraw. [Interruption.] The former Chief Whip of the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith), is in no position to challenge my assertion that the alliance Benches were deserted when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State spoke because the hon. Gentleman emphatically was not here and he certainly could not be missed.
Secondly, it was extremely patronising for the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) to rebuke my hon. Friends who arrived here as a result of the historic Tory victory of 9 June last year. Unlike the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, one thing that my hon. Friends have not done is to vote against something in which they believe. The hon. Gentleman's rebuke was an utter disgrace.
In view of the characteristic disarray of the alliance Benches I think that I should be a bully if I proceeded any further

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 16.

Division No. 446]
[1.27 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Marland, Paul


Amess, David
Mather, Carol


Ancram, Michael
Maude, Hon Francis


Arnold, Tom
Merchant, Piers


Ashby, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Aspinwall, Jack
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Montgomery, Fergus


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Baldry, Tony
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Neubert, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Nicholls, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Norris, Steven


Bottomley, Peter
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Powley, John


Bright, Graham
Raffan, Keith


Brinton, Tim
Rhodes James, Robert


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Browne, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Bruinvels, Peter
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Burt, Alistair
Roe, Mrs Marion


Butterfill, John
Rowe, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Cash, William
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Chope, Christopher
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Spencer, Derek


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Conway, Derek
Stem, Michael


Coombs, Simon
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Cope, John
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Dorrell, Stephen
Stradling Thomas, J.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Temple-Morris, Peter


Durant, Tony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Fallon, Michael
Thorne, Neil (IIford S)


Fox, Marcus
Thurnham, Peter


Gale, Roger
Tracey, Richard


Goodlad, Alastair
Twinn, Dr Ian


Gorst, John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Gow, Ian
Waddington, David


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Harvey, Robert
Walden, George


Hayes, J.
Waller, Gary


Henderson, Barry
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Watts, John


Howard, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Whitfield, John


Lilley, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Wood, Timothy


Lord, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Lyell, Nicholas



McCurley, Mrs Anna
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclean, David John
Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. John Major.


Maples, John





NOES


Ashdown, Paddy
Parry, Robert


Beith, A. J.
Penhaligon, David


Bruce, Malcolm
Skinner, Dennis


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Howells, Geraint
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wallace, James


Johnston, Russell



Marek, Dr John
Tellers for the Noes:


Nellist, David
Mr. David Alton and Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 50 to 65 agreed to.

[Some with Special Entry.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

BANKRUPTCY

That the draft Insolvency Proceedings (Increase of Monetary Limits) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

That the draft Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1984, which were laid before this House on 10th July, be approved. —[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Question agreed to.

Countryside Conservation

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Sir Humphrey Atkins: I had hoped that this debate would come on earlier, not just because it is now late, but because the conservation of the countryside, of which all of us who live in these islands are so proud and which all of us love so much, deserves a much longer time for discussion than art Adjournment debate at this hour.
Nevertheless, I intend in the time available to outline a few areas of particular concern. I hope to hear the Government's thinking and plans from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. I thank him for being here to reply to the debate. It is most appropriate that he should be here because, although several Government Departments have responsibility in this area — I can think of at least six, including the Treasury, which one must always include—his Department, the Department of the Environment, is in the lead. I shall return to that matter of co-ordination of Government activity.
The main area of concern is simply stated. Year after year more of our countryside disappears or is changed out of all recognition. It disappears because of the ever-increasing size of our towns and villages—new towns are created where none existed and housing developments creep relentlessly outwards from existing towns. It also disappears because of the pressure of industry —factories, warehouses, power stations, reservoirs and so on — and communications, most notably motorways and the developments associated with the increasing size of airports. The countryside is changed by new and improved methods of agriculture, spurred on by that most basic of human requirements—the need to have enough to eat.
It is small wonder that a multiplicity of voluntary societies and associations have sprung up and are still springing up, all dedicated to the same objective—the conservation or preservation of what countryside we have left. I shall not mention them by name because if I mention one I should mention them all, and there are so many that time does not permit me to do so. I shall refer to only two bodies, for both of which my hon. Friend's Department has responsibility because their members are appointed and funds provided by his Secretary of State. Before I do so, I should like to pay a compliment to the Secretary of State. He gets few enough compliments these days, but this one is certainly due to him.
Last summer my right hon. Friend issued a draft circular giving the Government's view of the future of the green belts surrounding London and our great conurbations. It caused much alarm because it appeared that the Government's resolve to maintain the integrity of those green belts was weakening. A considerable public outcry ensued and representations poured in to my right hon. Friend from many people outside and, of course, from the Select Committee on the Environment. He not only listened but acted by revising his thinking and issuing, only three weeks ago, a new circular that is much firmer and has, I believe, allayed many of the fears that were previously expressed. I hope that my hon. Friend will pass on my compliments to the Secretary of State.
The Nature Conservancy Council is one of the two bodies that I have in mind. It has many responsibilities,


but the ones mostly in the news at the moment are its responsibilities in connection with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I know very well that it would be out of order for me to make any reference in an Adjournment debate to an amendment of that Act—even though we know that it has been spoken about—so I do not propose to do so, but there are two questions that I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State.
The management agreements for the protection of the sites of special scientific interest, with which the Nature Conservancy Council is charged to deal, are expensive. I believe that my hon. Friend answered a question quite recently giving a figure. But how expensive it will be in the future is a matter of considerable concern. Recently, Dr. Bill Adams of the World Wildlife Fund published a pamphlet in which he said that the management agreements could cost as much as £42 million a year. The figure given by my hon. Friend recently in the House was about £320,000. There is a great divergence here, and it is a matter of concern and worry to many of us, because £42 million a year is a sum that nobody in this House believes that the Government will give. I should like to hear my hon. Friend's thinking about the cost of administering that part of the Wildlife and Countryside Act.
I should like to know whether my hon. Friend believes that it will be possible to fund extra staff for the Nature Conservancy Council, because another of the complaints is that it is taking a long time to do its work and, understandably, it is believed that it is a matter of staff time.
I have another question concerning the Nature Conservancy Council. I wonder whether the concentration of sites of special scientific interest will allow for the protection of the wider countryside. It has been suggested that there is a danger that the SSSIs may become isolated islands in a sea of laissez-faire where nothing else matters. Obviously, I hope that it will not happen, but there is one danger which has been mentioned recently in a report of the only voluntary body that I shall mention—the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. In a recent report the society said that most of the United Kingdom's upland birds depend on land which is not safeguarded by designation as sites of special scientific interest. That is a worry, and I should like to hear what my hon. Friend thinks about this anxiety which has been expressed by a number of people.
The other body to which I want to refer is the Countryside Commission. In particular, I refer to its excellent report, issued in March of this year, entitled, "A Better Future for the Uplands". I know that my hon. Friend will agree that it was a thoroughly thoughtful, detailed and constructive document, and that its recommendations are worth the most careful consideration. It has been very well received over a wide area, and the Government's response is awaited with keen interest. I do not suppose for one moment that my hon. Friend is in a position to give the Government's response here tonight, but I very much hope that he will give an indication of the Government's thinking.
One of the points made very strongly by the report is that all the interests in the countryside — landscape, recreation, agriculture, prosperous rural communities,

forestry, roads, buildings and all the rest—are in the end indivisible. That, of course, applies not just to the uplands but to the whole country. There is an urgent need for the Departments concerned—the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices and, of course, the Treasury — to establish a system under which they can examine the problems of the conservation of our countryside as one problem, not as separate problems. For a long time there has been a need for concerted action to preserve the countryside of which we are all so proud, and I hope that this evening my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me that that is in his mind, and the mind of his Department and the Government, and that they are taking steps to bring it about.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) for giving me the opportunity, after such a thoughtful speech, to give some of the Government's thinking on these important issues before the House rises for the summer recess. I am also grateful for the way in which my right hon. Friend described some of the principal problems and issues, and some of the problems of the institutions that are sponsored by my and other Departments.
My right hon. Friend will agree that the Conservative party has a long and honourable record in this area. The word "Conservative" in the name of our party is rightly applicable to the affection with which many Conservative Members regard the countryside, in which so many of our members have their roots. I was most grateful for my right hon. Friend's kind words about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in relation to green belts, and I shall pass on his remarks. My right hon. Friend is right to say that the Government have re-emphasised with the new circulars the continuity that we intend to exist in the preservation of green belts. The draft circulars that were issued last summer were replaced by further drafts issued for comment in February 1984, and were—as my right hon. Friend said—favourably received. Since then the subjects have been considered by the Select Committee on the Environment, and the Department's response to the Select Committee's report included a revision of those drafts; the circulars were issued on 4 July.
The new green belt circular reaffirms the Government's commitment to green belt policy as originally set out in the 1950s, and reproduces Ministry of Housing and Local Government circulars 42/55 and 50/57, which were the classic guide. It recognises the main functions of green belts as, first, checking the unrestricted sprawl of built-up areas; secondly, as safeguarding the surrounding countryside from further encroachment; and, thirdly, as recognising the role of green belt policy in relation to urban renewal.
The intention is to achieve a long-term continuity of approach. Accordingly, the new circular stresses that once the general extent of a green belt has been approved as part of the structure plan for an area, it should be altered only in exceptional circumstances, and it emphasises the need to look as far ahead as can be seen when proposing boundaries.
The Select Committee made several valuable recommendations on the treatment of derelict land,


especially on the urban fringe. The circular now includes advice to ensure that the mere fact that land has become derelict should not be accepted as a reason for amending approved or adopted green belt boundaries or for allowing development in the green belt, although dereliction may be a relevant factor when considering what land should be included in a green belt when boundaries are first defined. As the circular states, the overall aim should be to develop and maintain a positive approach to land-use management, which makes adequate provision for necessary development and ensures that the green belt serves its proper purpose.
In the more general issues of conservation, the centre piece of our policy is the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to which my right hon. Friend referred, which represented a major initiative. It was the first substantial piece of countryside legislation to be introduced in more than a decade, and it represents an honest attempt to address a wide range of difficult, and undoubtedly contentious, issues. It is worth pointing out the fact that our predecessors did not contemplate such a broad legislative package. The previous Conservative Administration, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), deserve great credit for carrying through that Act.
Obviously, we are aware of the pressure on the Act. We are continuing to monitor its workings closely. We recognise, for example, that problems have arisen from the notification of sites of special scientific interest, and are currently considering ways in which the procedures in this part of the Act might be strengthened. We have also made it clear that we shall review the compensation arrangements under the Act when there has been an adequate opportunity to assess how they are working in practice. I am aware that the terms of those arrangements, and the principle behind them, are a source of criticism in some quarters.
As to the terms of payment, we recognise that there is a considerable number of agreements building up which have been negotiated in accordance with the guidance which we issued at the end of February last year. Undoubtedly some of these will, if concluded, prove expensive, though it is worth emphasising that the majority involve only relatively small sums. For example in the financial year just ended the Countryside Commission paid grant of less than £60,000 towards the first-year costs of six management agreements concluded by national park authorities from the special fund which we made available for that purpose.
We have provided similar funding arrangements for the current year, and although it is too early to offer any reasonable estimate of the likely demand, the latest information is that the parks are currently negotiating some 40 further agreements at an approximate annual cost of about £85,000.
It is in the lowland areas where the bills are liable to be greater, for obvious reasons. Many sites of special scientific interest exist in lowland areas where the land is intrinsically more fertile and so capable of sustaining a higher level of farm profitability. Since the Act was passed over a 100 sites, covering about 9,155 hectares, have been safeguarded by management agreements concluded by the Nature Conservancy Council. More than 500 agreements, covering about 55,000 hectares, are currently being negotiated at an estimated cost of about £1·4 million in annual payments and an additional £1·4 million in capital

sums and arrears. I think the point which emerges is that while no one would deny that the making of management agreements does cost money, it is not accurate to claim, as some of our more vigorous critics have done, that the costs of implementing the Act are either out of control, or that they are not commensurate with our policy objective of monitoring the most important habitats and the most valuable landscape.
In that respect my right hon. Friend raised the question of NCC funding. The council's grant-in-aid for 1984–85 has been fixed at £15·6 million, which includes £1·25 million for the consolidation of the NCC's new headquarters in Peterborough. That represents a significant increase in real terms in the resources made available to the NCC since implementation of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I am pleased to announce tonight the addition of an extra £2·55 million for this year for the NCC's work in safeguarding sites.
We are now considering very carefully the NCC's new strategy document "Nature Conservation in Great Britain". This paints a vivid picture of what has been happening to our wildlife heritage and spells out what we need to do to conserve and rebuild that heritage. It is an important contribution to the general public debate and we are looking at the long-term resource requirements it poses in the context of the council's corporate plan. That will include the question of staffing which my right hon. Friend mentioned, though I cannot give any further commitments tonight.
Not all attention in the lowlands is focused on SSSIs. The House will be well aware of problems in the Norfolk broads, where the issues are those of landscape rather than habitat conservation. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will forgive me for letting the House know the latest position, and our proposals for helping the Broads authority. First, the authority has reached holding agreements with four of those concerned in the Halvergate area for a period of a year with the aid of 75 per cent. grant from the Countryside Commission. The authority decided not to offer an agreement with full compensation to a fifth farmer in respect of about 90 acres of land near Halvergate which is bordered by a railway line and other ploughed land. That was its decision, as the local planning authority.
In a further case the authority was faced with the unfortunate situation where it seemed that a proposal to drain and plough might proceed before any agreement could be reached. The authority submitted for confirmation by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, a direction under article 4 of the Town and Country General Development Order revoking the planning permission conferrd by class VI of the order for engineering operations. My right hon. Friend responded quickly. He recognised that time was needed for consideration of the issues involved, and to allow the possibility of agreement being reached, made his own article 4 direction but limited its duration to one year. The Broads authority is now negotiating with the farmer concerned, and I believe that there is some hope of a satisfactory outcome.
That is something of the background to the current position. But the Government have acted on a wider front and tonight I can announce some further measures aimed at helping the conservation of the broads. First, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have decided to apply section 41 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to the executive areas of the Broads authority, subject to the


satisfactory outcome of public consultation. If section 41 is applied it would be accompanied by a requirement for farmers to consult the Broads authority about farm developments for which they wish to claim capital grant. If grant were to be refused in individual cases because of the authority's objections, the farmers concerned would be entitled to the offer of a management agreement.
Secondly, we have also warmly welcomed the Countryside Commission's report on its review of the Broads authority and have endorsed, in principle, its finding that it would be desirable to establish a special statutory authority by means of private legislation. To that end, we have authorised the Countryside Commission to pay grant to Norfolk county council towards the costs of preparation of a Bill, which I understand that the council proposes to deposit in the 1985–86 Session. We have reserved judgment, however, on the proposal to provide in the Bill for the new authority to have certain powers to control navigation.
As it is clear that it will be some years before the new authority can be appointed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has authorised the Countryside Commission to continue to grant-aid the adminitrative expenditure of the present Boards Authority in the interim. Grant will remain at the rate of 50 per cent. However, and this is the third part of the Norfolk Broads package that I am announcing tonight, we have agreed that the Commission may pay 75 per cent. grants to the authority in respect of the cost of any management agreements that it may enter into, so extending the present authorisation at this rate that, to date has applied only in the Halvergate area. This brings the support for management agreements in the Broads into line with that provided in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
We have also been studying the report of the working group that we established earlier this year to consider alternative means of conserving the landscape of the broads. One possibility that has been canvassed is an experimental scheme to be administered by the Countryside Commission and designed to support grazing in the marshes. Among other things, it would involve the making of livestock headage payments to farmers who participated. This is an interesting proposal and one to which we have given careful thought. For the present, however, we have decided to defer further consideration while we await the outcome of a new initiative that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture proposes to take in Brussels in the context of the negotiations on the draft EC regulation on agricultural structures which consolidates and revises previous directives relating to the modernisation of farming and aid for the less favoured areas.
This initiative is perhaps in the longer-term the most important of all the new items on my list of positive new steps that the Government are taking. Perhaps I may describe it a little more fully. My right hon. Friend may be aware of the recent House of Lords Select Committee report on Agriculture and the Environment which was debated in the other place earlier this week. My noble Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, outlined the Government's position during the debate. He pointed out that we have already put

forward some amendments to the draft regulation designed to make it more responsive to environmental concerns, but he was also able to announce a major new initiative.
The Government recognised, said my noble Friend, as did the Select Committee, that some of the conservation-ally sensitive areas of our countryside did not fall within the ambit of the less favoured areas directive. In consequence, as foreshadowed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture at the last meeting of the Agriculture Council, the noble Lord announced that the Government had decided to seek a more general provision in the draft regulations. This is a major step. It represents the Government's belief that we need a completely new title in the regulation, conveying powers which would enable us in environmentally sensitive areas to encourage farming practices which are consonant with conservation. The Government will straight away discuss with the. Commission how best to give effect to this idea which would herald a new policy for balancing agriculture and conservation objectives, in the way to which my right hon. Friend was referring. We need to have greater coordination between the different parts of policy. If achieved, it would not, of course, be a solution to all the problems, but it would be a most valuable step forward, and one for which many of the voluntary bodies, such as the CPRE and other makes of Wildlife Link, have long been passing.
Of course, as my noble Friend pointed out, amendments of this nature may not be initially acceptable to all other member states. We certainly believe we need to be able to designate areas outside the less favoured areas as conservationally sensitive and within those areas to be able to make payments and impose conditions to ensure that agriculture is carried on in a way which is consistent with conservation objectives. That is our intention and that is what we shall try to negotiate.
There are other areas of activity as well. My right hon. Friend has made the point that we need to think about the countryside as a whole, not just SSSIs and designated areas. That is true, although clearly the safeguarding of the more important and vulnerable areas must be high on our list of priorities. In the Wildlife and Countryside Act, we have provided a power for all local planning authorities to make management agreements for conservation. Such expenditure would be eligible for support from the Countryside Commission, whose importance we have recognised by giving it independent status. A good deal of work generally is undertaken in the countryside with the aid of grant from the Commission. During 1983–84 for example, it paid grant of over £1.4 million towards amenity tree planting and woodland management. That was out of a total of £8 million that the Commission paid in grants to the private sector and public bodies throughout England and Wales in that year.
The Commission also spent a further £1·25 million on Groundwork Northwest during 1983–84. That is a major intitiative in restoring the countryside on the fringe of large towns. Charitable trusts have been established with the support of the Countryside Commission in a number of areas. The trusts are stimulating and co-ordinating the work of local authorities, private and voluntary bodies and individuals. They have proved so successful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 13 July his support for the formation of a Groundwork Foundation to take on the task of establishing independent trusts throughout the country.
The Countryside Commission was also responsible for the useful report "A Better Future for the Uplands", to which my right hon. Friend referred, published earlier this year. We welcomed this report at the time as an important step in trying to find consistent interlocking remedies to the problems of one important part of the rural scene. We intend to respond in due course to the Commission's initiative — I hope in the autumn. There are a considerable number of recommendations which we must consider carefully.
The NCC is at present intensively active, which is why we have made available the additional funds that I have been able to announce tonight. There are now more than 190 national nature reserves. The designation of these areas has made important contributions to the creation of conditions in which ospreys, white tailed eagles, avocets and ruffs have returned to the United Kingdom. Eagles are again breeding in the north-west of England and sea eagles have been re-established in Scotland.
The latest nature reserve to be established by the NCC is, indeed, in the Broads area. It has recently acquired some 177 acres at Ludham Marshes in the Broads for the purpose of establishing a national nature reserve. It is only in this area that the rare and important Norfolk Aeshna dragonfly occurs.
The NCC helped by the RSPB has also done invaluable work in highlighting the damaging effects of pesticides, and action stemming from that has been crucial in the recovery of many of our finest birds of prey.
The NCC is also increasingly monitoring loss and damage to SSSIs, and that is important. The results will provide a reliable base on which to plan the future and to see what improvements may be needed.
The voluntary bodies do tremendous work in this area. We have an army of volunteers amounting to about 3 million people, and we assist and encourage this valuable contribution through grants made by the NCC, which in 1982–83 amounted to about £360,000. In other words, they are supported directly by my Department.
These NCC grants supported the purchase of the about 900 hectares of land for nature reserves, and represented a continuing expansion in the grant aid available to voluntary bodies.
I must also pay tribute to the growing role played by the industrial and commercial world in sponsoring conservation. The partnership between the NCC, the World Wildlife Fund and the Government has already led to an encouraging number of successful schemes illustrated in the Government's booklet on conservation and business sponsorship, which we published last year.
From what I have said I hope that it is clear that the Government are fully alert to the pressures which face our countryside today. But we do not share the pessimistic view of some critics that the only way forward is by detailed regulation and control. As a Government we firmly believe that control of all kinds, together with the bureaucracy on which they must depend, should be kept to an essential minimum.
However, that is not our only reason for being sceptical of those who think that compulsion represents the only satisfactory kind of Government action. The fact is that we cannot make progress unless we maintain the confidence and good will of those farmers and land owners who take the lead in conservation. Many now do so, for example, through involvement in fanning and wildlife advisory groups.
This movement represents a splendid effort, starting from modest beginnings but increasingly spreading throughout the country. It shows how the needs of agriculture and conservation can be reconciled at the grass roots level, just as my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and Secretary of State seek to reconcile and integrate those interests at the highest level of policy.
Our policies are designed to carry that integration forward. and I believe that the broad approach which we have adopted offers the best way to make progress in this complicated area.
I hope that I have been able to show my right hon. Friend that he has been timely in raising this subject, in that we have a number of new initiatives to announce and I am grateful to him for introducing this short debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Two o' clock.